Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
Warangal Chamber of Commerce - Appellant
Versus
Director of Marketing, Government Of A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 02-06-74
Locus Standi - Corporate Body - Representation of Members - Writ of Mandamus - Interest in the Matter - Administrative Action - Public Authority - Sufficient Interest - Enlargement of Class of Persons to Protest Arbitrary Administrative Actions.
Fact of the Case:
The Warrangal Chamber of Commerce, a corporate body representing licensed commission agents dealing in agricultural produce and livestock, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the low commission rates prescribed by bye-laws framed under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The petitioner sought an enhancement of the commission rate to 2.50% and a declaration that the Director of Marketing had the jurisdiction to amend the bye-laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had a real and sufficient interest in the matter to maintain the writ petition as the refusal to increase the commission affected the petitioner's existence and its members' interests. However, the court declined to consider the question of the Government's power to set aside the increase in the commission ordered by the Market Committee in light of a recent Division Bench decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, a corporate body, had the locus standi to maintain a writ petition on behalf of its members under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the Government had the power to set aside the increase in the commission ordered by the Market Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court recognized the evolving nature of locus standi and the need for a liberal approach in determining standing to seek judicial review under Article 226. It emphasized that the class of persons entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Article 226 is not confined to those with fundamental rights but can include persons prejudicially affected by administrative actions, even if they do not have a proprietary or fiduciary interest in the subject matter. 2. The court declined to address the issue of the Government's power to set aside the commission increase due to a recent Division Bench decision that had already ruled on the matter.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE problem that stands pre-eminently to the fore in this writ petition is whether the petitioner -- The Warrangal Chamber of Commerce, a corporate body, can maintain a writ of Mandamus on behalf of its members, under Article 226 of the Constitution. When the case came on for hearing before our learned brother, Obul Reddi, J. his Lordship referred the matter to a Division Bench in view of the importance of the issue involved in the case and the conflicting course of judicial authority obscuring the principles governing the same.
( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed to set out our answer, the essential facts may be shortly stated. The petitioner is a corporate body registered as a non-trading company under the Andhra Pradesh Non-Trading Companies Act. 1962 (Act II of 1962 ). Several licensed commission agents, dealing in agricultural produce and livestock, are its members. The objects of the petitioner-Chamber of Commerce are: to promote, encourage, aid and protect trade, commerce and industries in Warangal District in general and within the municipal limits of Warangal town in particular in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
( 3 ) UNDER the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (Act 16 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as the Act, Market Committees have been constituted by the Government for every notified area. Every Market Committee establishes such number of markets in the notified area as the Government may direct from time to time and declare the limits of several markets, for the purchase and sale of any agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock. It is not necessary for the purpose of this writ petition to notice in detail the provisions of the Act relating to the constitution of Market Committees and establishment of markets. Under Section 32 of the Act the Government have the power to regulate or prohibit the Commission Agents operating in the markets by a notification in that behalf until such time the Market Committee may issue licences to the Commission Agents. Under Section 33, the Government may make rules in any notified area or areas for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Under the proviso to Section 34, the. Director of Marketing may make bye-laws in respect of a notified area for which a Market Committee is constituted (or the regulation of the business and the condition of trading therein, if the Market Committee itself fails to make bye laws within two months from the date of its constitution. Under bye-law No. 35 of the Bye-laws so framed, a commission of 1-25% is prescribed as the commission for the Commission Agents towards their fees. It is the grievance of the Chamber of Commerce that the said fee prescribed is absolutely low and not commensurate with the service rendered by its members who are licensed Commission Agents. The Commission Agents, it is the submission of the petitioner, not only represent the interests of the vendor within the market area but also help the vendors in the matter of insurance and preservation of the produce in case the vendors decide not to sell the commodity immediately. The petitioner made representations on behalf of the members to the concerned authorities to enhance the commission charges to 2. 50%. It appears that when the Director of Marketing enhanced the rate to 2. 50% in similar cases, the Government issued a notification in the matter nullifying the said enhancement on the ground that the Director of Marketing had no power. Since it is not possible in the circumstances to get any relief from the Director of Marketing and have the bye-law amended for the enhancement of the rate of commission to the Commission Agents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring that the Director of Marketing has jurisdiction to amend the bye-laws effecting changes in the rates of commission to be paid to the Commission Agents in the Market
AI
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
