HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.171 of 2007
and
WRIT PETITION No.6687 of 2007
Date: July 01, 2014
WRIT PETITION No.170 of 2007
Between:
1. P.J. Koteswara Reddy & 2 others.
… Petitioners And
1. The Gudur Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Gudur, Nellore District & 5 others.
… Respondents * * *
WRIT PETITION No.6687 of 2007
Between:
Lakshmi Prasanna Venkateshwara Lemons Growers & Merchant Association, Gudur, Nellore Dist. rep. by its President Varidineni Balrama Naidu. … Petitioner And
1. The Municipal Council, rep. by its Chair Person, Gudur, Nellore Dist. & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.171 of 2007
and
WRIT PETITION No.6687 of 2007
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.171 of 2007 was filed challenging the inaction of respondents 1 to 4 in taking suitable steps to shift lemon market of the 5th respondent association from Katakaraja Street, Gudur, to any other place or the notified market by the 3rd respondent pursuant to the representations made by the petitioners and others including the representations dated 04.06.2002 and 12.11.2006.
2. The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.171 of 2007 is that Gudur Municipality is a notified second grade municipality and Katakaraja Street, Park Street and the abutting areas are busy localities with residential houses. The 5th respondent association was formed by establishing number of shops and a market for purchase of lemons and their export in Katakaraja Street. The vehicles transporting lemons, the workers and the accumulated filth at Katakaraja Street are causing nuisance in the area. They also state that near Rapur Road, Gudur at Balaji Lemon Market, a lemon market was established under a Government Order and the same was challenged by the 5th respondent in W.P.No.24352 of 2003. The said writ petition was dismissed on 04.09.2006 holding that the authorities shall consider the case of the members of the 5th respondent association and also the members of Balaji Lemon Market for allotment of space as per law. In spite of establishment of market near Rapur Road, the members of the 5th respondent association have not shifted their business from Katakaraja Street to the market located near Rapur Road. When they submitted several representations to the authorities, no orders were passed. Hence, the present writ petition was filed.
3. In response to the said writ petition when the Gudur Municipal Council in its meeting held on 28.02.2007 discussed with regard to filing of the counter-affidavit, it passed a resolution directing the businessmen of the 5th respondent association to shift their business to a notified area. Challenging the said resolution, the 5th respondent filed W.P.No.6687 of 2007.
4. Thus, both these writ petitions are interconnected and are being disposed of by this common order.
5. From the papers filed in W.P.No.6687 of 2007, as per A.P. Gazette dated 05.10.1972, the entire municipal limits of Gudur is declared as a market area by the Agricultural Market Committee. When steps were taken for auction of collection of tax by the Gudur Municipality from the lemon market in Katakaraja Street, the Government issued a Memo No.13647/Elcc.II/2006-1, dated 17.07.2006, staying the auction. When the Gudur Municipal Council tried to collect fees on sale of lemon by passing a resolution in C.R.No.1320, dated 18.07.2006, from the Lemon Market in Katakaraja Street, the same was directed not to be implemented by the Government in its Memo dated 28.07.2006. Thus, the sale of lemon in Katakaraja Street was protected by the Government from time to time on the ground that its activities are regulated by the Agricultural Market Committee.
6. The Agricultural Market Committee filed a counter-affidavit stating that all the traders dealing in purchase and sale of lemons have obtained licence under Section 7 (1) of the Markets Act and are entitled to conduct business within the notified area. The various allegations made in W.P.No.171 of 2007 were denied by the Market Committee. Though they tried to acquire an extent of Ac.10.14 cents at Chennuru Village of Gudur Mandal, that effort did not fructify, as major part of the land was notified as water body. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent Market Committee may not force the traders at Katakaraja Street, who have settled their place of business in the said area to the business premises of members of Balaji Lemon Market in view of the fact that the members of the Balaji Lemon Market have erected their shops at their own costs within the notified market area. The present writ petition was filed at the instance of rival traders.
7. In fact, the 3rd respondent allotted an extent of Ac.5.00 covering Survey Nos.461/3 and 461/1 at Muthyalapadu Village of Chilukuru Mandal on 23.10.2007 for establishment of market and it is nearing completion. The 3rd respondent would take steps for requesting all the traders to conduct their business in the said market area.
8. The first respondent in W.P.No.171 of 2007 filed a counter- affidavit stating that they have sought for clarification from the Government and the same is awaited. The 2nd respondent is also awaiting clarification to remove the 5th respondent market from the residential area. The Council in its meeting dated 28.02.2007 passed a resolution to shift the market from Katakaraja Street to any other notified area.
9. The 6th respondent/writ petitioner in W.P.No.6687 of 2007 also filed a counter-affidavit stating that some of the members of their association formed into a new association in the name and style “Balaji Lemon Market” having their office at Rapur Road, Gudur Town, Nellore District. They have been carrying on their business activities within the notified area only and without any obstruction or nuisance to neighbours. They never used lorries for the purpose of their business. In view of the differences between the 6th respondent and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.171 of 2007, they brought political pressure on the Gudur Municipality and got a resolution passed on 30.06.2006 proposing to collect tax from the lemon market of the association. The same was suspended by the Government on 17.07.2006 after the association preferred an appeal. The attempt of the Municipality to auction collection of tax from the lemon market was also sorted out by the Government in its Memo dated 28.07.2006.
10. From the above pleadings, it is evident that the 3rd respondent has to regulate the marketing activities of the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent cannot pass resolution directing shifting of business of the 5th respondent to other notified area, as the entire Gudur Municipality was notified as market area by the 3rd respondent. If at all any auction has to be conducted, the same has to be conducted by the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent denied various allegations made by the petitioners in W.P.No.171 of 2007 and it also transpired that filing of the writ petition is due to rivalry between the petitioners and the 5th respondent.
11. In view of the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent denying the averments of the petition and stating that a new market is being established at Muthyalapadu Village of Chilukuru Mandal and steps are being taken to shift all the business activities to that area, the 2nd respondent cannot pass a resolution directing the 5th respondent to shift their business.
12. In the circumstances, the impugned resolution No.1495, dated 28.02.2007, is without any authority of law and in fact the 2nd respondent in their counter-affidavit stated that they are awaiting instructions from the Government on the issue. In the absence of any legal basis for the said resolution, the resolution cannot stand to scrutiny of law. Accordingly, the resolution No.1495 dated 28.02.2007 is quashed. The 3rd respondent is given liberty to take appropriate steps in the matter keeping in view the various allegations made by the petitioners and the business activity of the 5th respondent if it deems it necessary.
13. Subject to the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: July 01, 2014 BSB
43 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.171 of 2007
and
WRIT PETITION No.6687 of 2007
Date: July 01, 2014
BSB