Back
1997 Supreme(AP) 36
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : R.BAYAPU REDDY, S.S.M.QUADRI
Vijayawada Skin Merchants Association - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., Agriculture and Co-operation (Maktg-I) Department, Hyd. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-22-97
Headnote:
A. P. Agricultural (Produce and livestock) Markets Act, 1966 - Section 2,3(3),4(4),7,12(1) - Illegal and arbitrary - Challenge - trade of sale and purchase of various articles like dry fish raw hides raw skin bones and horns and hoofs in notified market area - Obtain licence - Various contentions arc raised by counsel appearing for petitioners - For purposes of disposal of these cases Court would classify cases in three groups having regard to contentions urged before us - Impugned notification insofar as it includes raw hides and raw skins is questioned in writ Petition insofar as it includes bones horns and hoofs is assailed in Writ Petition and insofar as it includes dry fish is challenged in of - Members of petitioner-Association and other persons are carrying on trade of sale and purchase of various articles like dry fish raw hides raw skin bones and horns and hoofs in notified market area of respondents-Market Committees - After issuance of impugned notification they were asked by respondents-Market committees to obtain licence under Section 7 of A. P. Agricultural Markets Act 1966 and to pay market fee - This has led to filing of present writ petitions - Whether impugned notification insofar as it includes raw Hides and raw Skins bones horns and Hoofs and dry Fish is illegal and whether petitioners are liable to pay market fee under Section 12 (1) of Act on said articles - Whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration - Explanation - Held, SECTION 12 (1) of Act insofar as it is relevant for our purpose reads as follows" Levy of fees by Market committee market committee shall levy fees on any notified agricultural produce livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in notified market area at such rate not exceeding two rupees as may be specified in bye-laws for every hundred rupees of aggregate amount for which notified agricultural produce livestock or products of livestock is purchased or sold - SECTION 4 of Act inter alia enjoins that after establishment of market committees under sub-section of that section Government shall declare by notification market area and such other area adjoining thereto as may be specified in notification to be a notified market area for purposes of Act in respect of any notified agricultural produce livestock or products of livestock - A combined reading of sub-section (3) of Section 3 and sub-section (4) of Section 4 of Act leads to conclusion that in respect of declared notified area of a market committee agricultural produce livestock or products of livestock may be notified in respect of which market committee is entitled to exercise power under Sections 7 and 12 of Act - Section 7 mandates that trading etc in notified agricultural produce livestock and products of livestock in notified area shall be under and in accordance with conditions of a licence granted to any person by market committee - Court are concerned with definition of expression notified agricultural produce livestock or products of livestock in Section 2 (x) extracted above - It means those agricultural produce livestock or products of livestock specified in notification under Section 3 of Act - For purposes of this section all notified agricultural produce livestock or products of livestock taken out of a notified market area shall unless contrary is proved be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area - explanation II - In determination of amount of fees payable under this act fractions of ten paise equal to or exceeding five paise shall be counted as ten paise and other fractions of ten paise shall be disregarded "Ordered Accordingly
( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions the validity of the notification issued by the government of Andhra Pradesh in G. O. Ms. No. 286, Agriculture and Co-operation (Mktg. I) department, dated 5-7-1994 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned notification ) is questioned as being illegal and arbitrary. Various contentions arc raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. For purposes of disposal of these cases we would classify the cases in three groups having regard to the contentions urged before us. The impugned notification insofar as it includes raw hides and raw skins is questioned in writ Petition Nos. 16947, 20791, 21647 and 21648 of 1994; insofar as it includes bones , horns and hoofs is assailed in Writ Petition nos. 5060 and 26077 of 1995 and insofar as it includes dry fish is challenged in W. P. Nos. 7119 and 4982 of 1996.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to these cases are a few and are not in dispute. The members of the petitioner-Association and other persons are carrying on trade of sale and purchase of various articles like dry fish , raw hides , raw skin , bones and horns and hoofs in the notified market area of the respondents-Market Committees. After the issuance of the impugned notification they were asked by the respondents-Market committees to obtain licence under Section 7 of the A. P. Agricultural (Produce and livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short the "act") and to pay market fee. This has led to the filing of the present writ petitions.
( 3 ) THE Additional Director of Marketing filed counter-affidavit for the respondents. It is stated, inter alia, that though earlier notifications were issued specifying commodities with reference to each Market Committee, it was noticed that there was evasion of market fee, so to plug such evasion of market fee a common notification notifying all the notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock, flowers, fruits and vegetables making applicable to all notified market areas, was issued in this impugned G. O. in exercise of the power conferred under Section 4 of the Act. It is stated that the notification does not suffer from any illegality as contended by the petitioners.
( 4 ) MR. P. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 16947 and 20791 of 1994, Mr. R. Maruthi Raja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in w. P. No. 21647 of 1994, Mr. R. V. Subba Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. No. 21648 of 1994 and mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in w. P. Nos. 5060 and 26077 of 1995 and mr. J. V. Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4982 and 7119 of 1996, have contended that the directions issued by the respondents-Market Committees to pay the market fee under Section 12 (1) of the Act on the ground that the sale and purchase of raw hides and raw skins , bones , horns and hoofs and dry fish within the notified market area by the petitioners, would attract the provisions of the Act, is wholly illegal and arbitrary. The learned Counsel argues that the impugned g. O. is bad as hides and skins should not have been included in the G. O. as the product of livestock having regard to the definition of that term in Section 2 (xv) of the Act. The other learned Counsel adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. P. Ramachandra Reddy. It is also contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4982 and 7119 of 1996 that inclusion of dry fish in fish group (Group IV) is in violation of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Sri Lakshmi Dry Fish Traders v. State, AIR 1986 AP 330, so it has to be quashed to that extent.
( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader has, on the other hand, contended that the product of livestock need not relate to a live animal or other livestock and when those articles are no
