Dismissed

Rice Millers Association rep by its Secretary v. the Commissioner and Director of Marketing Committee

Telangana HC9 Dec 2021WP/7948/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged show-cause notices seeking weignment charges from rice millers under a 2007 notification. The Court dismissed the petition holding that despite the controversy surrounding Supreme Court precedents on show-cause notices, the case lacked merit as Byelaw 33 clearly stipulates purchaser liability, and directed filing of objections first.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Liberty granted to file objections to the show-cause notices within two weeks.

Rice Millers Association rep by its Secretary Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WR IT PETI TION NO: 7948 0F 008

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 , Rice Ir,4illers Association rep by its Secretary, Shri Gouru Srinivas S/o Laksh mipathi Business. R/o N/iryjlaguda.

¶8

2 Sri Venkalaramana Boiled Rice and Groundnut Oil N/till,, rep by R. Lakshmi Kantham S/o Ramaiah managing partnei

¶9

3 I,4/s. I,4aharadhi Rice Corporatjon rep by its, lVlanaging partner Smt. G. Anitha W/o Srinivas. B usiness

¶10

4 l,4/s. Raja Boilde Raw Rice and Groundnut Oil tVill,, rep by M. Sudershan S/o Satyanarayana IVlanag^jng partner

¶11

5 S/oNagamallaiah [4/s. Arvinda Parboiled l,4anaging Modernpartner^{RiceMill rep by, S. Venktaeshwarlu}

¶12

M/s- Sri Devi Parboiled and modern Rice and Groundnut, Oil lr,4ill, rep by jain Prakash Rao S/o^premchander trrtohan tttanaging Fi,fnei^-

¶13

l,4/s. Satyasai Rice Corpora on, rep by its managing partner, R. Umashenkar S/o Vasu aged 47 Business.

¶14

Ir,4/s. Sai Prashanth Rice Corporation, rep by its managing partner Ch. brahmana S/o Kistaiah aged about 50 yearsl

¶15

9 lrlls. mahaganapathi Rice Corporation, rep by its l,4anaging, partner Vidyala Srinivas S/o Raghavulu Business.

¶16

10.Sri Shalivardhana^{parboiled€nd} lvlodern Rice N4ill, rep by J. Surender Reddy S/o Gopal Reddy Managing partner

¶17

11.1\4/s. Vishnu Vishnu Murthy Parboiled S/o Ramaiah managing and lvlodern Rice pArtnJr,- [Vlill and, Groundnut^{-' - -" -'} lvlill, rep byy.

¶18

1z.lvt/s..Vlaya Krishna parboiled and l\Iodern Rice, Mill, rep by p. Seetharamulu S/o Naraiah managing^pArtner,

¶19

13.1,4/s.. Ivlaheshwari Parbo jled and lVlodern Rice [,4ill, rep by, S. Narender S/o Venkaiah Managing^partner

¶20

l,4/s. Sri Laxml l,4odern Rice l,4ill rep by, Gudipati venkateswarlu S/o I,4anikyam, lvlana ging^partner.

¶21

15.M/s. Sri Kanaka Duroa Ricew and Groundnut Oil Mill_11,, rep by g. Narsimha S/o Peraiah managin-g^partner.

¶22

VeT kateshwara Rice Corporation. rep by its managing. partner R. Venkateswarlu S/o Janaki Ramaran Busrness.

¶23

17.1,4/s. Ravi Rice [,4ill, rep by R. purushotham S/o Sesha jah, I,4anagjng partner

¶24

18.M/s. Mahendre^{Rice lndustries rep by its, managing Partnertt'4 Narsimha S/o} Mallaiah, Business.

¶25

19.M/s.SambaShivaParboiledRiceMills(P)Limited,,repbyr'LingaiahS/o Ramaiah lvlanaging^Partner

¶26

20.M/s. Mirvalouda^{Rice lndustries Pvt. Limited repby its, Managing PartnerR.} Raniitha'Ku-mar^{S/o Kondaiah Business,b}

¶27

M/s. Sai Ramana^{Rice lndustries rep byits Managing partner'G ShankerS/o} Laxmipathi Business.

¶28

Santosh rice^{lndustriesrep by its managing partnerG} '^{Ram Muthy S/o} Narayana business

¶29

23.M/s.mahateiaRicel,'lillsPvt.Limitedrepbyits,managingPartnerB' Kushalaiah^{S7o Raja LingamBusiness}

¶30

24.M/s.MaharshiRiceMillPvt.Limitedrepby.l'4anaging,Partner'Gudipati -- Biiiit"i. src ,atiaiih eusiness a are Fyo Mirybraguda, Nalgonda District.

¶31

...PETITIONERS

¶32

AND"'-i, fn" Commissioner and Director of l'4arketing Committee' Government of

¶33

A.P., Hyderabad

¶34

Z. iire ngiicuttural^{marketing Committee rep by, Secretary' Miryalguda'} Nalgonda.

¶35

a. I/iriatguAa^{Dadvai Union rep byits Secretary, Miryalaguda' Nalgonda District'}

¶36

; B.(r; Reddy,^{s/o.Pichi Reddv,50years,Ryot''liryalaguda'Nalgonda} District.

¶37

[n+^{is impfeaoeOasper Court order dt 27110/10 in WPIVP1 9564/18)}

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe oleasea to issue Writ^{of Mandamus or any other appropriateWrit, declaringthe} ffi;;; - oi i s'oi'zoot isiued bv the Respondent No 1 and iJ..";;;"ii; ;;ti;;; ;i """tir""ii"" 08-04-2007^{issued bv RespondentNo 2 as illesal'} #fi;.;;;";iit;ti;";ifi without authoritv^{oilawandasainst the provisionof} e.p. fA6ri"urtut"l^{Produceand Live stock) marketsAct'1966'}

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRl.K JAGADISHWAR REDDY}

¶41

Counsel for^{the RespondentNo.1 : GP FORAGRICULTURE}

¶42

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2: V'V'NARAYANARAO}

¶43

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.3:}

¶44

Counsel for the^{ResPondentNo.4:--}

¶45

The Court made^{the following:ORDER'}

¶46

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO.7948 0F 2008

¶48

Q8]DEB:

¶49

lleard learned Counsel for the petitioners and lcarned (lovcrnment Pleader lor Agricr-rlture and Sri V.V. Narayana Rao, lc:irrned Counsel appcaring [or th(' 2I)(l rcspondcnt.

¶50

This Writ Perition has bccn liled assailing the action of rhe r-t:spondents in issuing notjcc dated 08.04.2008, calling upon the pi'Litionr--rs lo sho,,r' c,llls( as Lo u lrl. demand lor par,mcnt of uciqlrmt:rL i:ha|gt:s slroulcl not b( madc irl rcspect of purchase of qoods atl'ected l;r' thcm lronr thc market vard.

¶51

.1. 'l'ht'pctitior.rL-'rs cor.rtcnd thirt bascd on thc r.rotification issuccl ix thr' ls' ri:sponcierrt ciatcd 13.02.2007 arrd published in A.l). (',iizcttc No..l dated U8.03.20U7 \'hcreundcr Amendment to I31'ela\r 3ii Anr.rcxl.lrc IV of rhc Agric:u)turai i,4arke L Corrmittcc ltas bccn rraclr:. Llrc r-cspor.irlents :rrr.r clain.rirrrl L hal lhe pctitioncrs arc ljablc lo par,'u,cighmcnl char{<es on purchases cllected.

¶52

I'eLitioncrs corltendcd Lhat lhe)' arc purchascrs, u,tto plrrchasc thc agriculture produce frorn rhe Agriculturists brought to the markct ).ard for saie; that the saicl amendment made b)'the notification darcd 08.03.2007 was the subjcct matter of considcralion before this Court in Ur.A. No. 1O30 of 2006: that bY .irrdgmt:nt^{d.rtcd 18. i 0.2006,this Hon'blcCourt u'hilc holding that} u iliroL.rt arncnilinq Llrr: blc Iar,,'s, i:dopLiorr oi the sanrc bv thc '4;ri l<ct Cornr.nittcc b1, li 2. ol rcsolution cannol bc hcld to be vlilid: lirrrL lI' lrTr' said -lucigrnc'nt Lhc ircllon ol ihc rcsponrlrrr-rLs rlcnranclin{ ,,'cighmcnL ch:lrgcs is helil to br: contrary to^the

¶53

¶54

¶55

pro:isjons of Section 34 of the^{,.1). (A[)} &l-S] Markct ,\ct.^l'156.arld hari struck down the impugned notilication^{and thc rcsolution br} rvhich the consequential notification issued b1' Lhc^respolldent rhere in in adopting thc same^s as held to bc^{r-rltr:rvires: ancl thal} no dcmand claiming lcighmcnt chargcs^r:ndcr the^{noiilieati,,rrc.rrr} be madc. Thus, tl.re petitioners colltend that even in the facts^{ol .ll,} present cilse, the respondcr-lls iuc sccking t.l rci-i)'lr ut:iqll:,'li';l' chargcs lrom the pctitioncrs.^r','lro a|e^{pttrcl.rascr,'.} arlri tlrrrt lh,' impugncd notices issttcd .rre crliltral.r to thc b<sup>('l.r\ s^iti llli'^2" responden t Markct committce.

¶56

l,carned Govcrnmcnt l'lcacier appearing lor the Iesponclel.tts submits that the demand lor pal,rnent of u'eighmcnt charges on thc petitioners, is being made not on the basis of thc notificzrtion clarcd 08.03.2007; and that the dcmand lor payment of such charges^is being made, as per the byelarvs 33 of the Market Committee, rrhich fastcns the liability on ihc purchascr to pr,iy sLlch weigh rnct.r t charges. Furthcr, by drarving all.cntiorl of lhis CoLrrt to iIlI impugrred notices issued^,"r,hcrcin a rclcrcncc is nracic to tlrc^{[)</sup> c lar,r' 33 krr making such dcrnand, it is cor.ttcndccl tlrirt thc clairn^ol- petjtioners. of respondents clemanding thc pavmcnt ol ueighment ch:rrges on the strength of notillr:ation datt'cl 0,9.03.-l0Ot is rrithortl ant basis.}

¶57

1t is further conler.icled that thc 2"'r respond('nt NllIfkcl Committee did not havc its oun bvc lau's and harl lilliorvecl llrc brc lat.s made by thc l)ircctor ol Miirkctinq LlommiIlc( rlhi'rcir.t lrrc]ari 33(2) clearll, pro,",ides such charges to be paid bv the pur-r'irasr.r onl)', and it reads as under:

¶58

"Weighment^{shdll be done by weiglrtl.anliceased blj} tha^{NlarkelCam,1ttleeruho shollbe paidweighment} cltarges^{btl tlle Durchast:t'cLLlhe r(,.le prescibedbu} lhe Mctket^{Cammitteesubject to Rule 78"}

¶59

Thus.^{it is conrendecitllal rcliance placcd b)' lhe pctitioners} on lhe^{judgmentof this Court inW ANo lO30 of 2006 is} n.risplacecl^{il'rasmuchas lhc respoudenlsonly soughr to folloq' the} cxisting^{practice,which is in accordancewirh rhe byelaws adopted} by th(]^{2'd rcspondent MarketCommitteelt is furthercontended} bv the^{learnedGovernmenL Pleaderthat the impugnedproceedings} in the^{presc'nt Wril Petition are onlyshou' cause noticesissued} proposing^{to demand pavmenlof ucighmentchargesand itrs} al$ar1's^{opcrt lor Lhepetitionersto [ilctheir objections lhereto'} rvi.ricl-r^{ilfiiecl rr ould bccclrrsidercdbl/ lhcrespondetits in} liccorrlanct'^{rl iIh ]alr'}

¶60

S i have^{lakcn nore of the contcntions urged on behallof the} rcspcctivc Partlcs

¶61

q l"irstl',^{itis to bc sccn thiIL thc impugrlcdproceedingsare} onlv rtoticcs^{ro u lrich the petitionerscor'ildhavc liled its ob'jectiotrs} lor cotlsiclcratit)n^{bv lhcresponclcnts' l-lo\'cver' the pct.illoners} chosc^{to c:hailcngeti.rerlotices bcfolt:this Court bv conLcndirlg thtr} demar.rd^{madc thercuncier lo bc: conlraly to the judgmento[ lhis} Cor.trt^{in thc Writ APPeal'}

¶62

Mohd'^{Ghulam Ghouser' the} 10. ln^{SPeciaIDirector v'} Supremc^{Courr heldas under:} "This^{Court in a large numbcrof caseshas deprecated the} practice^{of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions} / .11)ir.irSSCC^ir(l

¶63

questioning lcgality oI the sho$,cause noriccs stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigatilc proccss to find actual facts with the participatiolt and in the prcsence of the partres. Unless thc lligh Court is satisfied that the show-causc lloticc \r,as totallv non est in thc €.'c of the lau, lor absoh-tte want ofjrrrisdiction of the authont] to even investiBate into facts. \.rit petitiolts should not be entertained for thc merc asking and as a matter. o{ routine, arld the rvrit petitioner should in\ariabl! bc directed to respond t<.r the shorv-causc notice and t.rl(c all stands highlightcd in the writ peririon, Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even b(j urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the ver), notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court."

¶64

ln Unlon of lndia v. Coastal Container Transporters

¶65

Association2, the Supremc Court held as under:

¶66

"On the olher harld, ryc lind lorce iD the contentioD oi tllc lcarrned Senior^(lounsel. Shri Radtrakrishnan, appcanng for the appcllants Lhar tlrc l.ligh Court has commrrle.l ert'or irt entertainil]g thc rr,,rit petition under Articlc 22{) of thc Constitutiot-l of India at the stagc oi shoiv c;rL,rst: noticcs.^'i'ltouglt therc is r-ro bar as such Ior cntcrl.riniltq the lvrit petitioDs at tl-re stagc ol shou-cause notice. ltrLr it is settlcd bv a number ol dccisions of this Cor"rrr. rrl:crc lvrit petitions can bc entcrtainccl at thc shoN-c.lusc nr)trcc stage. Neither it is a cerse ol lack ofjurisdictiorl nor iurv violation of princrp)cs of na[ura] .justic--c is allcgccl so rrs Lo enLertain the writ pctition at tltc stagc of r-roticc."

¶67

Sccondly, as pointcd out bv thc 4th respondent in its affidaivit filed lor impleadment, the byelaw 33 maclc bv thc Dirccror ol Marketing Committee as lollowed by the +tt, rcspondcnt clcarl, stipulates such charges to be paid by the purchaser at thc ratc

¶68

¶69

prL-scribcd bv thc Market Comrnittee subject to Rule 78. ii the bvclrrrv alrcadr stipulatcd [or pzrr ment of^,.r,eighment charges b1' the purchascr. it is not oper) for thc peLitioners nou, to contend that lhc rcspondcr.lls arc making ar dcmand in pursuancc ol' the notilicarion issrrcd in rhe vcarr 2007.

¶70

i3. li-urLl.rer, the notific;rtion issucd in the year 2007 deals with enhancemcnt ol existing Market charges of the fr:nctionarie s like hamali, u'r:ighrnr:nt and s\'ecpcr charges in respect oI ccrLain comrrodities and the pcrson responsible for paying the same, lorming part ol byelau' No.35 oI the byela$s. Since, the demand lor lt:v1, ol""vcighment chargcs bcing made on lhe petilioners undcr byclaw No.33, the amendment to byelaw No.35 under lhe nolili(]ation of the ycar 2007 has no application, much less lhe .judgmcnt^{oi l.his Court in W.A.No. 1030of 2006 can comc to r.hc} rescue ol t.hc pc t ition crs.

¶71

l.+. Furthcr, no material is placed bclore this Court to shou that the rlcishment charges u cre bcing paid bl lhe sellers pre,, iouslr' lncl it ls onlr irlLer issuancc oI tlrc noLilic:rtion, changc has been cl[cr;Led fixing tl.rc li:rbilit1,to pav such chargL.s on the pLrrchaser.

¶72

t5. In Yieri ol thc above. rhis \Vrit l)critior.r is dcloid o[ mcrit and is lirrblc to bc rlismjssed. Ilo\,(:.,cr, .rs the pctitioners had filcc! rhc prt-'scnt. Wrir Petition on rcceivine rlte notices $,ithoLlr filing its objcrctior.r tl.rercto, ljberlJ is grantcd to the peririoners ro filc obicctions to tlr(, notices issucd b1.thc 2n,l rcsponderrt \ithir'1 I\'o u'ccks from th. datc ol'rec;cipr ol a copv of this order. On rec.,ipt of objccLions, il any, filcd by the petitioners within thc time stipr-tLatecl, lhe respondents are dirccted to consider and disposc ol

¶73

the same in accordance rl ith lau alLer allording an opper^r Lllr rJ ' ' hearing to each ol thc noticee separaLci], and comn.rLrnrraLc its decision thereon.

¶74

Sr-rbject to the above obscrYation, thc V/rit P('tition is dismissed. No costs.

¶75

Miscellaneous petitions pending, iI any shaLl stand r:loscd

¶76

SD/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1q-. ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶77

To,

¶78

One CC to SRl. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶79

Two CCs to GP FOR AGRICULTURE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶80

One CC to SRl. V V NARAYANA RAO IOPUC]

¶81

One CC to SRI. A PULLA REDDY AND ABHISHEK REDDY IOPUC]

¶82

Two CD Copies

¶83

One Spare Copy ^\ k PB BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0911212021

ORDER

WP.No.7948 of 2008

E ST..if (q
o
2 3 JUL 2022 n
*
.1c;1;p111i$ <,4

¶89

DISMISSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶90

WITHOUT COSTS

¶91

q
X

Rice Millers Association rep by its Secretary v. the Commissioner and Director of Marketing Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rice Millers Association rep by its Secretary v. the Commissioner and Director of Marketing Committee

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

K.Vittal Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Ganpati Sugar Industries Limited Vs National Highway Authority and 2 Others

Gaddampally Radhakrishna Reddy and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

The Mahaabubnagar Grains and Seeds Merchants Association Vs The Commissioner and Director of Marketing Committee

Rasi Seeds Ltd. Vs the Station of A.P and 51 Others

V.Lalitha Vs The State of Telangana