Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Grandhi Ramakoteswara Rao And Ors. vs Govt. Of A.P. By Secretary, Municipal ... on 31 October, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(4)ALT909
ORDER S.V. Maruthi, J.
1. This petition is filed for a direction declaring the action of the respondents In shifting the Sunday market from the area in front of Mavulamma temple to Wednesday market near the new Bus-stand at Bhimavaram.
2. The petitioners are residents of Bhimavaram town. For over a period of 100 years Sunday market is conducted in the open land in front of Mavulamma 30 temple where vegetables and fruits are sold by the Vendors who come from various towns and nearby places. No non-vegetarian stuff is sold in the said market. There is also another market known as Wednesday market near the new Bus-stand. The respondents have decided and notified to shift the Sunday market to the Wednesday market at the new Bus-stand. The petitioners contend that the area near Bus-stand is not conducive for the purpose of conducting market. Further for purpose of shifting the market, the respondents should pass a resolution and obtain sanction from the Government under Section-277(3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act. Since there is neither resolution nor sanction from the government, shifting of the market from Mavulamma temple to new Bus- 40 stand is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it will cause lot of inconvenience to the public as both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food stuffs are sold in the market to be shifted to the new Bus-stand.
3. The Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is a resolution 45 passed in CR. No. 684 authorising shifting of Sunday market from Mavulamma emple to new Bus-stand. The reason for shifting of the market is that when there was no improvement around Mavulamma temple and there is no specific place provided for conducting weekly market in Bhimavaram, the Vendors occupy the road margin and conducted their business. The area around Mavulamma temple is now very much improved and it has become a busy commercial area. The public especially the ladies are feeling inconvinient and much hardship to purchase the articles as the road margins are occupied by the Vendors. The petitioners are collecting contributions from the Vendors in the name of development of temple. As the Vendors have to pay the market fees to the Municipality and contributions to the petitioners they are selling the items i.e. fruits, vegetables etc. at higher rates. The public are facing hardship to purchase the items at higher rates. It is also stated that there is sufficient place available protected by a compound wall by the side of the water supply over- head tank near the new Bus-stand and there is no need to occupy the road margin. In the area near the Bus-stand it would be conducive to conduct weekly market being the Municipal shopping complex in the open site. In view of the above, the respondents contend that there is justification for shifting of the market from Mavulamma temple area to Bus-stand.
4. The question whether a market to be established at a particular place is within the discretion of the Municipality taking into account various factors and circumstances conducive for the purpose of opening the market. It is not for this Court to direct them to establish market at a particular place unless there is violation of provisions of law. The only violation alleged by the petitioner is that there is no resolution which was denied by the respondent.
5. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is no sanction is obtained from the Government under Section-277(3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act. Under Section-277(3), Municipal Council may with the consent of the Government dose any public market or part there of. Admittedly in this case Section 277(3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act is not applicable as the market was not being closed. On the other hand, Sunday market is being shifted to Wednesday market near the Bus-stand and the daily market is being continued near the temple. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners. The Counsel also submitted that no notification was published which is denied in the counter-affidavit and it is stated that publication was made in the District Gazette and announced through mike in Sunday weekly market area near Mavullamma temple street on three Sundays during March, 1996 i.e. prior to April, 1996.
6. In view of the above, there is no substance in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
7. However, it does not preclude the petitioners to make a representation to the Government if they are so advised. If such representation is made, the government may dispose it of in accordance with law.