ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief :

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction to call for the records culminating in the purported under MRF No.17/2005-2006, dated 21.03.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 herein viz., the Agricultural Market Committee, Sampara, Nadakuduru, East Godavari District, through its Secretary, Special Grade (FAC);

(b) Quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and pass such other orders.”

2. Heard Mr. S. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Prakasam, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ company purchases rice from various suppliers spread over throughout the country and particularly insists on the sellers to pay the market fee wherever applicable and thereafter, supply the same to the petitioner by transporting such rice to the petitioner’s designated locations/ E & F Agents. The petitioner purchased large quantities of Raw and Boiled Rice from the various registered traders in the state of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa during the assessment year 2005-06 and filed monthly statements to that effect. As per rule 74 specifically provides and prohibits that the fees leviable under sub-section (1) of Section 12 on notified agricultural produce livestock and products of livestock, if paid, to a market committee within the State shall not be collected by any Market Committee subject to production of proof of payment of fees if already paid once. The petitioner has also submitted the proofs relating to the assessment orders of the various Market Committees. The respondent issued impugned order in a sum of Rs.65,35,366/- is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore inaction of the respondents is questioned in this Writ Petition.

4. Per contra, the 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the petitioner is evading payment of market fee on purchase of rice showing unreasonable grounds. During financial year 2004-05 the petitioner purchased Rs.62,59,47,485/- value of rice and exported through Kakinada port to other countries. Out of which AMC permits were submitted for value of Rs.5,23,42,588/- only. At that time the AMC, Kakinada after allowing exemption, assessed the market fee at Rs.57,36,209/- on net purchase of Rs.57,36,20,886-58 and issued assessment order directing them to pay the amount, but the petitioner failed to pay the same. Assailing the said order, the petitioner approached this Court under 12G without availing statutory appeal under Section 12E and Revision under Section 12F of A.P (AP & LS) Markets Act, without paying disputed market fee showing unreasonable clauses. The stocks were packed and exported within the jurisdiction of this respondent and the commodity and nature of business attracts the provision of the Act. As per Act it is very clear that if market fee is paid at any AMC in Andhra Pradesh, the receipt is valid throughout the state as per Act, 1966 and as per rule 74(3) of AP (AP&LS) Market rules, 1969. The responsibility for proof of payment of market fee should be on license, or else market fee is payable. The assessment order of petitioner’s sellers are not proof of payment of market fees and it is only assessment order. Further at the time of formation of AMC Sampara a market and market yard was established at Nadakuduru in Ac.21.66 cents with all infrastructure facilities. The said Nadakuduru Market yard is at a distance of 4 KM from Kakinada port. This Court also held that licensed traders cannot escape from payment of market fee on the ground that facilities are not provided by the market committee. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition and placed on record the decisions of