Dismissed

Proprietor,M/S.Sree Lakshmi Balaji Cashew Processors v. Director, Marketing Agrl.Dept., and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jan 2024WP/24133/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged market fee levies on cashews purchased outside notified areas under the A.P. Markets Act. Respondents later submitted they never levied such fees. Court dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is dismissed as the action of the respondent was admitted to be unjustified.

Proprietor,M/S.Sree Lakshmi Balaji Cashew… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI ^ IN THE HIGH (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24133 OF 2011 ^

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/sSree Lakshmi Balaji Cashew Processors, Narsipatnam, District rep. by its Proprietor Sri Vippala Venkata^{VamsiMohan,StoV-Prasad,} Hindu, Aged about 28 years, 86-6/B, Main Road, Dharmasagaram,^Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Director, Marketing^Agricultural Department, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District Rep. by its Special Grade Secretary ...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatinthe} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the ^'9^ ^ourt may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction, more Particularly^{oneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents rtetem m lev^ collecting the market fee on the Cashews purchased^{bythepetitionerIndustries} outside the notified areas of 2"^ respondent as arbitrary, '"®9al and capr^mus and violative of the provisions of the A.P.(Agricultural^{ProduceandLiveStock)Markets} Act 1966 and w^^thout jurisdiction and consequently^{^'recttheRespondentsnoto} levy and collect the market fee on the Cashews at check^{postscontraryto} provisions of the Act 16 of 1966.

¶13

LA. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 29598 OF 2011)

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedm} the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition,^theHighCourt be Pleased to direct the respondents not to stop the vehicles of^{thepetitionerforftePaymentof} the Market fee on the cashews purchased by the Petitioner^{Industriesunderv} consignment outside of notified areas pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012fWVMP. NO: 4303 OF 2012)

¶16

Between:

¶17

The Agricultural Market Committee, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District Rep. by its Special Grade Secretary

¶18

...PETITIONER/2"'^ RESPONDENT

¶19

AND

¶20

M/s.Sree Lakshmi Balaji Cashew Processors, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District rep. by its Proprietor Sri Vippala Venkata Vamsi Mohan, S/o.V.Prasad, Hindu, Aged about 28 years, 86-6/B, Main Road, Dharmasagaram, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District

¶21

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶22

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Director, Marketing Agricultural Department, Hyderabad.

¶23

¶24

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim direction granted in W.P.M.P.No.29598 of 2011 in WP No. 24133/2011, dt. 27/8/2011.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY

¶27

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR AGRICULTURE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI B.PRAKASAM, SC^FORAMC

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.24133 of 2011

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief

¶35

“...to issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in levying and collecting the market fee on the Cashews purchased by the petitioner Industries outside the notified areas of 2'^ respondent as arbitrary, illegal and capricious and violative of the provisions of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act 1966 and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the Respondents not to levy and collect the market fee on the Cashews at check posts contrary to provisions of the Act 16 of 1966 and pass...."

¶36

Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture has produced a copy of instructions received from the Secretary Gr-2, Agricultural Market Committee, Narsipatnam vide Rc.No.91/2011, dated 08.01.2024, wherein it is stated that as per the circular guidelines issued by the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, Government of A.P., vide CircularNo.Unit-V(2) 186/2001, dated 23.03.2001 and Memo No.3.111(1)9513/2012, dated 07.01.2013, the

¶37

■ fiik

¶38

¶39

Agricultural Market Committee, Narsipatnam, has not insisted M/s Lakshmi Balaji Cashew Processors to pay the Market Fee on out of State purchasers and out of Country imports and also never issued any Assessment Order/ Notice levying Market Fee on purchase of notified Cashew nuts from outside the notified area and requested this Court to close the writ petition. 3. Considering the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT R^ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To, 1. One CC to Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri B. Prakasam, SC for Agriculture[OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Agriculture, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] • 4. Three CD Copies.

ssb gl

•S,

HIGH COURT

l-\ \

DATED:09/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.24133of 2011

DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Proprietor,M/S.Sree Lakshmi Balaji Cashew Processors v. Director, Marketing Agrl.Dept., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Proprietor,M/S.Sree Lakshmi Balaji Cashew Processors v. Director, Marketing Agrl.Dept., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Bose Pranadeep Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Khwaja Illias Mohi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs the State of Ap

T M Rao High School Vs the State of Andhra Prdesh

The Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches Vs the State of Ap

Sree Siridi Baba Educational Society, Vs The Chairman, Aicte