HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITIN No. 15248 OF 2008 DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.
BETWEEN Sri Subramanyeswara Swamy Coconut Traders, Rep. by its Prop.E.Sudhakar, Guntakal, Anantapur Dist.
….Petitioner And Agricultural Market Committee Rep. by its Secretary & Person-in-charge, Kuppam, Chittoor District and ors ….Respondents,.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITIN No. 15248 OF 2008
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner is doing business in watery coconuts by obtaining license from the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. As there are no growers in and around Ananthapur district, the petitioner used to purchase watery coconuts in the neighbouring States like Tamilnadu and Karnataka and sell the same in Guntakal. In the process of transportation of coconuts through lorries, they would pass through the check posts of the respondents which check the lorries and detain the vehicles for collecting market fee on coconuts which are purchased out side the State of Andhra Pradesh and are being transported to Guntakal. Though there is no purchase or sale of the said coconuts within the respective agricultural market committees, the respondents are collecting the market fee. In these circumstances, the present Writ Petition is filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Modern Nutrition Company Vs. Agricultural Market Committee {1996 (4) ALD 801} and Raghunath Cotton and Oil Products Ltd Vs. Director of Marketing {1997 (5) ALD 63 (DB)} In Raghunath Cotton and Oil product Ltd case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court while considering Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and Rule 74(2) of the Rules made thereunder, observed that:
“ A perusal of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 74 extracted above makes it clear that it incorporates the presumption contained in Explanation I to Section 12 of the Act. It must be noted that neither Explanation I to Rule 12 nor sub-rule (2) of Rule 74 extends the presumption to the goods which are being transported through the Market Area. Inasmuch as the liability to pay market fee arises on sale or purchase of any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock, the said Explanation and the said sub-rule raise a presumption which is rebuttable that when any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are taken out of the market area then such commodities will be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area. This presumption does not arise in a case where admittedly the commodities referred to above are purchased in a different State and are being transported.”
In the said decision, the Division Bench followed the decision in M/s. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd Vs. The Agricultural Market Committees {1996 (2) ALD 501} and allowed the Writ Petition therein.
Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, the present Writ Petition is also allowed in terms thereof.
Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.
Msnro