Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.R.LAKSHAMANAN, A.RAGHUVIR, B.J.DIVAN
Mamidi Satyanarayana Murty - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-19-76
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND LIVESTOCK MARKETS ACT - NOTIFIED AREA - MARKET - MARKET AREA - NOTIFIED MARKET AREA - INTERPRETATION - SAVING CLAUSE - LEVY OF MARKET FEES - JURISDICTION OF MARKET COMMITTEE - SCOPE OF SECTION 36(AA) - APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS TO SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGIES USED IN THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are traders dealing in notified commodities in and around Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District, challenged the levy of market fees by the Anakapalli Agricultural Market Committee, claiming that Yellamanchili was outside the notified market area of Anakapalli market and, therefore, the market committee lacked the authority to impose such fees.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the saving clause in Section 36(aa) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, which deemed areas declared as notified areas or markets under the repealed Acts to be notified areas under the 1966 Act for the purpose of Section 12 (relating to the levy of market fees), continued to apply until the entire machinery set up under the 1966 Act was fully operational.
Issues: 1. Whether the Anakapalli Agricultural Market Committee had the authority to levy market fees on the petitioners' transactions in notified commodities in Yellamanchili, which was located outside the notified market area of Anakapalli market. 2. Interpretation of the various concepts and terminologies used in the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, such as notified area, market, market area, and notified market area.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, and held that the concept of notified market area was distinct from the concept of notified area. 2. The court explained that the notified area was the largest geographical and physical unit, within which there could be one or more markets. 3. The market committee, which operated over the entire notified area, was responsible for establishing markets within its area of operation, as directed by the government. 4. Each market had a market area, which defined its limits, and within the market area were the actual markets where notified commodities were bought and sold. 5. The notified market area was declared by the government and included the market area and such other adjoining areas as specified in the notification. 6. The court held that the saving clause in Section 36(aa) of the Act continued to apply until all five steps required for setting up the machinery under the Act were completed, including the establishment of all markets directed by the government within the notified area. 7. Therefore, the Anakapalli Agricultural Market Committee had the authority to levy market fees on the petitioners' transactions in notified commodities in Yellamanchili, even though it was located outside the notified market area of Anakapalli market.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the petitioners, upholding the decision of the single judge and confirming the authority of the Anakapalli Agricultural Market Committee to levy market fees on the petitioners' transactions in notified commodities in Yellamanchili.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal comes before us on a reference made by our learned brothers, Sambasiva Rao and Sheth JJ. This writ appeal has been filed against the decision of Obul Reddi, J. (as he then was) in Writ Petition No. 4631 of 1972. The Writ petition was filed seeking directions against the State of Andhra Pradesh the Director of Marketing and the Agricultural Marketing Committee, Anakapalle, to desist from enforcing the bye-laws and R. 73 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Rules, 1969 and the executive order of the Government in its memorandum No. 2733/agriculture/iv/71/1 dated 26-8-1971 on the ground that the bye-laws and R. 73 are ultra virus and without jurisdiction.
( 2 ) THE main dispute between the parties is regarding the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act (16 of 1966), (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). By this Act two earlier Acts, which were in force in different regions of the State of Andhra Pradesh were repealed. These two Acts were the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Commercial Crops Act. 1933 and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Market Act, 1339-F. It may be pointed out that the Act of 1933, which was repealed was originally enacted in the State of Madras as Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933. The appellants before us are the original petitioners carrying on business in the notified commodities in and around Yellamanchili in Visakhapatnam District. Under the Act of 1933, the entire Visakapatnam district was constituted as a single notified area. It may be pointed out that, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Commercial Crops Act. 1933 as well as under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Market Act, 1339-F, referred to above, there were only two concepts viz. the concept of notified area and the concept of markets or market yards. There was no concept of market area or notified market area in those two Acts, which were repealed by the Act of 1966 with which we are concerned in the instant case. Under the notification issued by the Government under Section 3 (3) of the Act of 1966, the Visakapatnam District is divided into three notified areas viz. Anakapalle Visakhapatnam and Kothavalasa. After issuing that notification under Section 3 (3), the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 4 (1), constituted market Committees for the three notified area. This was the major second step which the Government was required to take in putting the machinery set up under the Act of 1966 into full operation. As a third step in this process contemplated by the Act, the Anakapalle Market Committee constituted a market for Anakapalle and that was done by the market Committee in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 4 (3) of the Act. The notification regarding the notified area for the three units was issued on 29-10-1968 and the notification regarding the setting up of the three market Committees was issued on 4/04/1969. By the notification under Section 3 (3) of the Act, the notified area for Anakapalle was to cover Anakapalle, Yellamanchili, Chodavaram, Narasipatnam and Chintapalle taluks. The Government directed the market Committee for Anakapalle notified area to establish markets at five places within the notified area of Anakapalli. The five markets to be thus established were Anakapalli, Chodavaram, Vaddadi, Makavarapalem, and Yellamanchili. After establishing the market at Anakapalli, the entire area within the limits of Anakapalli Municipality was notified by the market Committee to be the market area and the Anakapalli market was to comprise of Gandhi Market. Raja Rammohan Roy Vegetable Market, Jubili Hall site fish and meat market and Sunday weekly shandy market. Thereafter, in exercise of its powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act, the State Government notified what is referred to as notified market area for
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
