Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.NAINAR SUNDARAM, S.S.M.QUADRI
Md.Jaheeruddin - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing II) Department, Hyderabad - Respondent
W.P. No. 16495/93 etc.
Decided On : 02-11-94
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. P. Jangaiah Naidu, Mr. P.M. Gopal Rao, Mr. A.V. Krishna Koundinya
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Art. 226 and A.P. (ACRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND LIVESTOCK MARKETS ACT, 1986, Sec.2 (XVI) Locus standi Trader carrying on business in notified market area Has locus standi to maintain writ petition questioning validity of constitution of market committee.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Art.226 - Laches - Delay of more than one year in filing writ petition questioning action of Government Interference by High Court when sufficient explanation is given by petitioner.
H E L D : The provisions of Sec.5(1) and Sec. 6 of the Act dealing with the composition of the Agricultural Market Committee or the reconstitution of Market Committee are mandatory and the violation of those provisions renderes the composition invalid and illegal. Sec.5(1) does not contemplate the appointment in fitters or in pricemeal. The Government is not authorised to appoint members one by one to constitute the Market Committee. If the members of the Committee are allowed to be in appointed in instalments the term of the members of the Market Committee will vary from member to member to such member will be appointed for three years from the date of his first appointment, which would obviously be not in terms of or in accord with the scheme of the provisions of the Ad. There can be no reconstitution Of the committee as such on the expiry of the terms of the office of the members of the Market Committee as contemplated under Sec.6 of the Act. Sec.9 of the Act provide interalia that a meeting of Market committee be called on receipt of requisition from one third of the total members of the Market Committee - If the pricemeal appointment of members after committee to permitted, provisions of sub-section would be rendered In this case, the petitioner is a trader within the meaning of Sec.2 (xvi) of the Act and is carrying on business in the notified market area. The issuance of licence of renewal of licence to him and conducting of business in the notified area by him are under the control of the market committee; he is therefore, very much interested in the paper constitution of the Market Committee. If the composition of the Market Committee is not legal he would be vitially affected and would therefore be entitled to question the same. Therefore, the petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition.
The impugned G.O. was issued by the Government on 3.10.92, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 1.11.93 after a year and a month of issuing of the G.O., In the instant case, no right as such has occurred to the respondents on account of delay in filing the writ petition or laches on the part of the petitioner. The impugned G.O. has been under challenge in one proceeding or the other. In the circumstances of the case it would not be a just or proper exercise of jurisdiction to deny the petitioner the relief which he is otherwise entitled to from the High Court in the writ petition on the ground of delay or laches.
( 1 ) THESE three Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition out of which the appeals arose, raise the same question of law, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition.
( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be a trader within the meaning of Clause (xvi) of section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets act, 1966 (for short "the Act") within the notified market area of the agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad - respondent No. 15. He challenges the reconstitution of the Market Committee under Section 6 read with Section 5 of the said Act. He says that having fixed the total number for the hyderabad Agricultural Market Committee as 18, in G. O. Ms. No. 465 dated 26-3-1992, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent herein, reconstituted the committee in violation of the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the act; in the category of growers 10 persons were appointed as against 12; no member is appointed under Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5; and only 3 persons are appointed in the category of traders under Clause (iv) of sub- section (1) of Sections of the Act, thus the composition of the Market Committee - Respondent No. 15, is in violation of Section 5 of the Act. He, therefore, prays for a Writ of certiorari to call for records relating to G. O. Ms. No. 1295, Food and agriculture (Marketing. I) Department, dated 3-10-1992 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.
( 3 ) HE also filed W. P. M. P. No. 20846 of 1993 praying this Court to suspend operation of the impugned G. O. Ms. No. 1295 dated 3-10-1992, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
( 4 ) IT appears that Rule Nisi and service of notice in W. P. M. P. No. 20846 of 1993 could not be effected on the respondents. So the petitioner sought permission in W. P. M. P. NO. 22723/93 for substituted service for publishing in any local newspaper; that petition was ordered on 17-12-1993 and publication was made in the issue of the "eenadu" on December 20, 1993. Thereafter W. P. M. P. No. 20846/93 came up for hearing on 30-12-1993. A learned Single Judge of this court observing that the point raised in the Writ Petition is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Donda Rama Rao vs. Government of A. P. granted interim suspension of the impugned G. O. giving liberty to the 1st respondent to constitute a fresh committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the act. On the very next day i. e. , 31-12-1993 respondents 3 and 13 filed W. P. M. P. No. 26126/93 praying this Court to set aside the interim order of suspension granted by this Court on 30-12-1993. After hearing the parties therein, the learned single Judge made the interim order absolute being of the view that there was not much difference in the language of Section 5 of the Act as it stood in the year 1971 and as it is stands on the date of passing of the order of the learned Single Judge, in so far as the provision relates to composition of the Market Committee. Aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Single Judge, respondent No. 13 filed Writ Appeal No. 22/94; respondent No. 3 filed Writ Appeal No. 23/94 and respondents 1 and 2 filed writ Appeal No. 24/94. When the Writ Appeals came up before us, we withdrew the Writ Petition to our Court, with the consent of the parties, to dispose it of along with the Writ Appeals. That is how these cases have come up before us.
( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 13 alone filed a counter-affidavit in the Writ Petition. It is stated by him that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the Writ Petition; his brother and others earlier filed W. P. NO. 3126/93 questioning the impugned g. O. Criminal prosecutions are pending against the petitioners therein and at their instance the present Writ Petition is filed. After assumption of the office by the members of the com
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
