High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by rice mills and traders challenging the classification of rice as 'agricultural produce' under the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, relying on a prior judgment.
Writs of Mandamus and declarations sought by petitioners were rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.H.S. ANSARI
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO
W.P.Nos.15560/2003, 15570/2003, 17352/2003, 17659/2003, 17726/2003, 18075/2003, 18829/2003, 19257/2003, 19680/2003, 19921/2003, 23097/2003, 23457/2003, 23600/2003, 24894/2003, 25928/2003, 27160/2003 AND 341/2004.
WRIT PETITION NO : 15560 of 2003
Between:
R/o Nizamabad.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the Market Fee on the Rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G.PRAMOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 15570 of 2003
Between:
12 Lalitha Rice Mill, Weekly Bazar, Nizamabad, Rep. by Ramesh Gupta, S/o Raja Shankaraiah, R/o Nizamabad.
13 Jai Ganesh Rice Mill, New Gunj Road, Nizamabad, Rep. by K.Vittal, S/o K.Shankaraiah, R/o Nizamabad.
14 Nizamabad Agro (P) Ltd., Gandhigunj, Nizamabad, Rep. by Gopal Soni, S/o Radhakishanji Soni, R/o Nizamabad.
15 Gopaldas Shyamsunder & Co., Kaloor, Rep.by Suraj Agarwal, S/o Nathmalji Agarwal,
R/o Nizamabad.
16 Sri Yogeshwara Para Boiled Industries, Khanapur, Nizamabad, Rep. by L.Srinivas, S/o L.Gangarajam,
R/o Nizamabad.
17 Vasavi Industries PBRM, Arspalli, Nizamabad, Rep. by Palda Surya Prakash, S/o Gangadhar, R/o Nizamabad.
18 M/S K.Dasharatham & Bros., Arsapally, Nizamabad, Rep. by K.Kishan, S/o K.Dasharatham, R/o Nizamabad.
19 Sri Satyanarayana & Co., Rice Mill, Cont., Nizamabad, Rep. by K. Krishna, S/o Dasharatham, R/o Nizamabad.
20 Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Industries, Koloor, Nizamabad Rep. by P.Srinivas, S/o P.Laxminarayana, R/o Nizamabad.
21 Sri Srinivasa Industries, Khanapur, Nizambad, Rep. by P.Lakshminarayana, S/o Narsaiah, R/o Nizamabad.
22 Sri Rama Modern & Par Boiled RM, Sarangapur, Rep. by Kailash Goenka, S/o Dulichand Goenka, R/o Nizamabad.
23 Sri Sitarama Modern & Parboiled RM, Kamareddy, Rep. by Harish Goenka, S/o Dulich and Geenka, R/o Nizamabad.
24 Sri R.K.Modern Rice Mill, Khanapur, Rep. by Pavan Kumar Kedia, S/o Ram Nivas Kedia, R/o Nizamabad.
R/o Nizamabad.
26 Sri Venkataramana Paddy Processing Industries, Khanapur, Nizamabad, Rep. by D.Srinivas, S/o Jagadishwer Gupta, R/o Nizamabad.
27 Vamshikrishna Binny RM, Arsapalli, Nizamabad, Rep. by D.Srinivas, S/o Jagadiswer Gupta, R/o Nizamabad.
28 Sri Vaman Traders, Manikbhander, Nizamabad, Rep. by l.Rajulu, S/o Sharabaiah, R/o Nizamabad.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the Market Fee on the Rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY
WRIT PETITION NO : 17352 of 2003
Between:
2 M/s.Sri Baghya Laxmi Binny Rice Mill, Narsingi, Rep.by partner Y.Nagesh,S/o.Venkaiah,
R/o.Narsingi. 3 M/s.Annapurna Binny Rice Mill, Narsingi, Medak Dist., Rep. by partner Y.Srinivas, S/o.Yadhagiri,
R/o.Narsingi.
4 M/s.New Thirumala Binny Rice Mill, Narsingi, Medak Dist. Rep.by partner Y.Yadhagiri, S/o.Shivaiah, R/o.Narsingi.
5 M/s.Sri Balaji Binny Rice Mill, Narsingi, Rep. by partner M.Nagaraju, S/o.Siddiramulu, R/o.Narsingi.
6 M/s.Sri Sapthagiri Binny Rice Mill, Narsingi, Rep.by partner Y.Ashok, S/o.Gundaiah, R/o.Narsingi. 7 M/s.Thirumala Binny Rice Mill, Narsingi, Rep.by partner U.Omprakash, S/o.Bhoomaiah,
R/o.Narsingi.
8 M/s.Bhagawathi Binny Rice Mill, Narsingi, Rep.by partner Y.Dakshnamurthy, S/o.Gundaiah,
R/o.Narsingi.
9 M/s.Sri Dhanalaxmi Modern Rice Mill, Narsingi, Rep.by Managing Partner M.Chandraiah, S/o.Narayana, R/o.Narsingi.
10 M/s.Sri Krishna Modern Rice Mill, Narsingi, Rep.by Managing Partner M.Chandraiah, S/o.Narayana, R/o.Narsingi.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the Market Fee on the Rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966, and grant
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRS.NANDA R. RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 17659 of 2003
Between:
3 M/s.Hanuman Industries, Vattimarthy rep.by its PartnerT.Radhakishan s/o.Hanmanthaiah Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District 4 M/s.Siddartha Industries, Paddy & Rice Mill, Vattimarthy, rep.by its Partner Pola Peddaiah, S/o.Lingaiah Chityal Mandal Nalgonda District. 5 M/s.Uday Industries, Vattimarthy rep.by its partner, V.Venkateswarlu, s/o.Narsaiah Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2 (1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the Respondents at the Check Posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the Petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction ore appropriate order in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No: N.A
WRIT PETITION NO : 17726 of 2003
Between:
2 Sri Ravindra Parboiled Modern Rice Mill Rep.by Managind Partner, B.Ravinder S/o.Guruvaiah Chivemla, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3 Navodaya Parboiled & Rice Industry, rep.by Mg.Partner M.Ramurthy, S/o.Rangaiah Beebigudem, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 4 Jayalaxmi Parboiled Modern Rice Mill rep.by Managing Partner P.Narsimharao S/o.Kanakaiah, Beebigudem, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 5 Sri Gajalakshmi Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, rep.by Partner Pabba Nageshwar Rao S/o.Uddamaiah, Bebigudem Village, Suryapet Mandal Chivemula, Nalgonda District. 6 Navarathana Paraboiled Industry rep.by partner K.Chandrasekhar S/o.K.Venkanna, Durajpally, Chevemula Mandal, Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist. 7 Krishna Sai Commercial Company, Rep.by Mg.Partner Ch.Srinivas S/o.Lakshmamaiah, Cont:Navajyothi Parboiled Rice Industry, Durajpally, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 8 Sudha Sai Traders, Market Yard, rep.by Partner G.Nageswar Rao S/o.Ramaiah, Suryapet. Nalgonda District. 9 Janikirama Trading Company, rep.by Managing Partner Ch.Someshwarrao S/o.Chandraiah Cont:Sri VenkatalakshmParboiled Industry, Industrial Estate, Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist. 10 Swarupa Foods Private Limited, rep by Managing Director M.SrinivasuluS/o.Satyanarayana Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 11 Gouthami Parboiled Industries, Suryepet, rep.by Partner, M.Ramamurthy S/o.Challaiah Janagaon Road, Suryapet, 12 M/s.Gayathri Trading Company, rep.by partner K.Venkanna S/o.Chandraiah Pillalamarry, Suryapet, Nalgonda Distric. 13 Sri Rama Krishna Par Boiled Rice Industries, rep.by Mg.Partner, A.Ramachandraiah S/o.Rajalingaiah, Pillalamarry Village, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, 14 Nataraja Parboiled Industries, rep.by Mg.Partner B.Krishna Murthy, S/o.Narayana Bibigudem, Suryapet, 15 Sri Surya Parboiled Industry, rep.by Partner, R.Kutumbarao S/o.Narsaiah, Chivemula, Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist. 16 Venkata Krishna Trading Co., Rep/ Mg.Partner Y.Brahman Goud S/o.Sriram Goud. Bibigudem Suryapet, Nalgonda District.
17 Sri Santhoshima Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, rep.by Partner G.Venkateswarlu S/o.Guravaiah, Gaddipalli, Garidapalli Mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare that Rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Sec.12 of the Act by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 18075 of 2003
Between:
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare that Rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore Livestock Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2 (1) of the Act and Strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the respondents at the check post or any other place, demanding and collecting Market fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with section 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 18829 of 2003
Between:
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare that Rice is not an Agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P. (Agrl. Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Sec.12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction of appropriate order in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.P. FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 19257 of 2003
Between:
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare that Rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of schedule -II of the A.P.(Agricultural produce and livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with action 2 (1) of the Act and to declare that stopping or otherwise constructing the account of rice by the respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 76 and not in accordance with section 12 of the Act by issuing any writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 19680 of 2003
Between:
N.H. 7 Road, Ramayampet, Medak District
N.H. 7 Road, Ramayampet, Medak District,
Ramayampet, Medak District,
Ramchandram, S/o. Venkaiah,
Ramayampet, Medak District
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefor not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule0II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioner is illegal and beyond the scope of the Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRS.S.NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO : 19921 of 2003
Between:
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh., Rep.by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Mktg.) Dept., Secretariat., Hyderabad.
Kamareddy., Nizamabad District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstruction the movement of rice by the Respondents at the Check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Sec.12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 23097 of 2003
Between:
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents no to insist the petitioners to pay Market Fee on the Rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an Agricultural Produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and grant.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 23457 of 2003
Between:
Devunipalli Village, Nizamabad District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Livestock) Mark Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay Market Fee on the Rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an Agricultural Produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR AGRICULTURE FOR R1, R2
MRS.NANDA R. RAO FOR R3
WRIT PETITION NO : 23600 of 2003
Between:
Raghuram Industries, Rep. by its partner M. Ravinder S/o M.Mallesham, Pragathi Nagar (T) Tirumalagiri, Nalgonda District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioner to pay Market Fee on the Rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an Agricultural Produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 24894 of 2003
Between:
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural Produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Market Act 1966 is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioner to pay Market Fee on the Rice milled for out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 and grant such other relief as it deem fit and proper
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 25928 of 2003
Between:
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agriculture Produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay market Fee on the Rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an Agricultural produce within the meaning of the AP. Agricultural ( Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 and grant such other relief
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 27160 of 2003
Between:
Nizamabad.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay Market fee on the Rice Milled from out of paddy. If necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an Agricultural Produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
WRIT PETITION NO : 341 of 2004
Between:
R/o Nirmal, Adilabad.
C.Kashinath, s/o C.Mahadev aged 42 years, r/o Nirmal, Adilabad District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Food & Agrl.(Mktg.) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep., by its Secretary.
2 The Director of Marketing, Govt., of A.P., Hyderabad.
3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Nirmal, Adilabad District, rep., by its Secretary.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as agricultural Produce for the purpose of levy of Market fee under provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay Market Fee on the Rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an Agricultural Produce within the meaning of A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.PRAMOD KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Ch.Surya Rao)
Since common questions of fact and law arise in the present writ petitions and these matters are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.18977 of 2002 and batch, these writ petitions can be disposed of together.
Petitioners seek Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in notifying rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of market fee under provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 as arbitrary and illegal.
The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners seems to be that rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act, since by means of separate notification the Government of Andhra Pradesh declared that agricultural produce shall mean either processed or unprocessed. Petitioners seek to assail the said notification and filed the present writ petitions.
The matter is no more res integra and it is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court whereby it has been held as follows:
“In view of these judgments and in view of the other reasons given hereinabove, we have no doubt in our mind that both the processed and unprocessed agricultural produce can be agricultural produce within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act provided it is notified in terms of the Act for the purpose of the Act by the Government.”
In view of the above, there is no difficulty in disposing of this batch of writ petitions following the ratio in the said judgment.
For the above reasons, these writ petitions must fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(M.H.S.ANSARI, J.)
(T.CH.SURYA RAO, J.)
7.3.2005.
kpr
To
6. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kamareddy, Nizamabad.
7. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Ramayampet,
Medak District.
8. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Chityal, Nalgonda Dist.
9. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist.
10. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Armoor, Nizamabad.
11. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Nirmal, Adilabad Dist.
12. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Bodhan, Nizamabad Dist.
13. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Banswada, Nizamabad Dist.
14. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Yellareddy, Nizamabad Dist.
15. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Tirumalagiri, Nalgonda Dist.
16. 2 copies to Govt. Pleader for Agriculture, High Court Buildings,
Hyderabad (O.U.T)
17. 2 C.D. copies
2 issues framed by the court
Whether rice qualifies as an 'agricultural produce' under Section 2(i) of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 for the purpose of levying market fees.
Whether processed and unprocessed agricultural products are included within the definition of 'agricultural produce' under Section 2(b) of the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.18977 of 2002 and batchFollowed¶489
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Mathrusree Binny Rice Mill and others
The Government of A.P.
Director of Marketing, Govt of A.P.
Agricultural Market Committees
M.H.S. Ansari
T.Ch.Surya Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
