Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Agricultural Market Committee, ... vs Commissioner, Anantapur ... on 24 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)ALD239, 1998(4)ALT100
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER
1. The petitioner herein is the Agricultural Market Committee, Anantapur. It is aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent-Municipality in Roc.No. 5922/97-A1 dated 6-2-1998 proposing to conduct open auction in respect of collection of fees in the daily vegetable market and shandy day and Friday in old town and daily vegetable market located in old bus-stand and right to collect fee on slaughter houses, apart from right to collect fee from the eighteen stalls situated in Mutton Market.
2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the Anantapur Agricultural Market Committee, Anantapur was constituted in the year 1968 under G.O.Ms.No. 2095 Food and Agriculture Department dated29-10-1968. The total extent of the market area is stated to be Ac. 20-30 cents. It is asserted that the petitioner Market Committee is empowered to regulate the Fruit and Vegetable Market within the notified area of Anantapur Market Committee, Anantapur, wherein all the facilities are provided in the market yard. The Committee is entitled to collect the market fee which is intended to be spent towards the services to be rendered and for the facilities to be provided to the farmers by the Market Committee.
3. The petitioner-Committee with an intention to regulate the fruits and vegetable market, Anantapur from 1-4-1998, passed a resolution to this effect on 6-1-1998 expressing its intention to regulate the Trade of fruits and vegetables in the market yard. The Secretary of the Market Committee accordingly issued proceedings in Lr. NO. 1/B3/98 dated 17-1-1998 and informed the Commissioner of the respondent-Municipality with a request not to lease out the rights to collect the fee on fruits and vegetables with effect from 1-4-1998, The Commissioner of the respondent-Municipality without responding to the said proceedings issued auction notice on 6-2-1998 announcing that public auction would be conducted on 20-3-1998 for granting lease of the right to collect fee on fruits and vegetables for the year 1998-99. It is that notice which is impugned in this writ petition.
4. It is the case of the petitioner-Market Committee that the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 (for short 'the Act') itself, is brought into existence to regulate the purchase and sale of agricultural produce and livestock products and the Market Committee constituted under the Act is entrusted with the duty to provide necessary infrastructure and collect the fee on the sale and purchase of any agricultural produce and live-stock within the notified area. The Market Committee is established within the notified area and the notified area covers and includes the markets within the Municipality.
5. After the establishment of the Market and constitution of the Market Committee, the respondent-Municipality has no authority in law to collect 'any fee whatsoever from the dealers or the purchasers, as the case may be, in respect of fruits and vegetables, though the markets are situated within the Municipality. The petitioner-Market Committee has got exclusive jurisdiction and authority to regulate the trade and conduct of the fruits and vegetable market in the premises of the market yard Anatapur and the respondent-Municipality has no authority in law whatsoever to interfere in the matter after the notification was issued by the Government vide G.O. Ms. No.2095, dated 29-10-1968 notifying the market area.
6. Objections were invited by the Stale Government before issuing the notification in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Act declaring the notified area of the Agricultural Market Committee and suggestions and objections received from the Municipalities were considered. Suggestions received from the Municipalities to exclude the markets located in the Municipality from the notified area were rejected. Under those circumstances, the Municipality has no authority in law to interfere in regulating the trade in fruits and vegetables in the markets located within the notified area.
7. The respondent-Municipality in its counter affidavit expressed its ignorance about the existence of the very G.O.Ms. No.2095 Food & Agriculture Department dated 29-10-1968 notifying the market area. It is further stated that the petitioner-Market Committee has not provided any facilities either to the farmers or to the vendors of the agricultural produce or live stock. No sheds are provided in me Market Area. No facilities whatsoever are provided by the Market Committee. A.P. Municipalities Regulation of Receipts and Expenditure Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Rules, 1968') grants right to the Municipalities to collect fee from the vendors with regard to the markets situated within the municipal limits. Under Section 276 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 all markets which are acquired, constructed, repaired or maintained out of the municipal funds shall be deemed to be public markets and such markets shall be open to all persons. Section 277 of the same Act authorises the council of the Municipality for providing places for use as Public markets and the council is entitled to levy fees in any public market at such rates and place the collection of such fees under the management of such persons as may appear to it proper. The council may close a public market only with the sanction of the Government.
8. The respondent-Municipal Council, in the instant case, passed the resolution in exercise of that power with an intention to grant lease to the highest bidder conferring the right to collect the fees with regard to the markets notified in the resolution. The areas and the boundaries were accordingly notified in the District Gazette on 23-2-1998. The petitioner-Market Committee has no right whatsoever to restrict the Municipality from conducting the auction, as the Municipality had every right to grant lease of the right to collect fees in the market area within the Municipality.
9. It is stated that there are two main markets in Anantapur town- one is situated near Tower Clock and the other is situated in old town, near Tadpatri bus-stand. Both the markets are situated in the prime area of the town, which arc convenient to the public to purchase vegetables, fruits etc. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Market Committee is located nearly five kilo meters away from Anantapur town and if the agricultural produce is allowed to be sold in the Market Committee,, the people of Anantapur have to travel a distance of five kilo meters to get their vegetables and fruits.
10. The Municipality is conducting auction of the lease hold rights to collect the fee from the said markets eversince the Municipality came into existence. The petitioner-Market Committee had never objected for collection of the fee at any point of time. There is no notification issued by the Government including the markets located within the Municipality. The markets situated within the Municipality are not included in the notification issued by the Government on 29-10-1968 and no market as such is established by the petitioner-Market Committee. The markets are established and maintained by the Municipality. No infrastructure as such and facilities are provided by the petitioner-Market Committee. Therefore, it is not entitled to collect any fee from any of the persons doing business in the said markets.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Municipality is not entitled to levy any fees on any notified agricultural produce, live-stock or products of the livestock purchased or sold in the notified area. It is submitted that Section 29 of the Act prohibits the Municipality from levying any such fees. The Municipality is entitled only for compensation for the loss of income of the Municipality oft account of establishment of markets in the area by the Market Committee. It is also urged that Section 30 of the Act has a over-riding effect and power if any vested in the Municipality earlier to the notification to levy and collect the fee has to yield to the provisions of the Act, even if the Municipality earlier had the power to levy and collect the fee is of no consequence. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality contends that the notification upon which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not show inclusion of the markets located within the jurisdiction of the Municipality and Section 29 of the Act, itself specifies that the area comprised within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Municipality should be specifically notified, hi the absence of any such notification, the Market Committee is not entitled to levy any fee and interfere with the activity of the Municipality in levying and collecting the fee. It is also urged that the Market Committee has failed to provide any facilities and infrastructure as such. Therefore, it is not entitled to levy any fee and collect the same from the traders from the markets established and maintained by the Municipality.
12. Learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent, Sri O. Manohar Reddy also makes similar submissions. So far as the issue relating to the over-riding effect of this Act is concerned, is not res Integra. While construing the provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act and the provisions of the Act 16 of 1966, a Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural Market Committee, Shankarpally v. Gram Panchayat Shankarpally, 1997 (5) ALD 798 held :
"The Gram Panchayat Act was enacted in the year 1964 while the A.P. Act 16 of 1966 was enacted in the year 1966. That apart, the Gram Panchayat deals in other spheres of local-self Government, while A.P. Act 16 of 1966 is specific statute dealing with setting up of Agricultural Market Committees and to collect the market fee and allied activities. Apart from Section 29(1) a bare reading of Section 30 of A.P. Act 16 of 1966 leaves no doubt that A.P. Act 16 of 1966 over-rides any other law providing for either establishment of market or collection of fees and the said act has to be done only by the Agricultural Market Committee concerned and not by any other authority. In view of Section 29(1) read with Section 30 of A.P. Act 16 of 1966, the petitioner-Agricultural Market Committee has got exclusive right to conduct the cattle market in Shankarpally village and the respondents are not entitled to conduct such cattle market.
In the circumstances, the respondents are restrained from holding any cattle market in Shankarpally and they shall not interfere with the rights of the petitioner-Market Committee from holding the cattle market and collecting the fee thereon."
I am bound by the aforesaid decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court,
13. Similarly in the case of K. Sivaprasada Rao v. The Anakapalli Municipality, 1976 APHN 231, it observed that:
"In view of the clear provisions of this section (Section 30 of the Market Act), it is not open to the Municipality to establish any market or to levy any fees therein in pursuance of any other enactment."
There is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in agreeing with the legal submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
14. But the question is as to whether the notification upon which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner shows notifying the markets located in the Municipality and as to whether any markets as such are established and maintained by the agricultural Market Committee enabling them to levy any fee from the traders in the said market.
15. It is no doubt true that G.O.Ms. No.2095 dated 29-10-1968 would indicate that the suggestion to exclude the Municipal areas from the notified areas under the Act was not accepted by the Government; but the notification declares that the areas specified in the Schedule-I to be notified areas for the purpose of the Act 16 of 1966 in respect of the Agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock specified in Schedule II. Item No. 10 relates to Anantapur District. Notified areas for the purpose of constitution of Market Committee are shown as Anantapur taluka and four other talukas with which we are not concerned. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Anantapur taluka includes all the villages, including town of Anantapur and the market situated within the municipal limits of Anantapur town. Section 3 of the Act 16 of 1966 authorises the Government to declare the areas specified to be notified areas for purpose of the Act in respect of any agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock specified in the draft notification. Section 4 of the Act confers power upon the Government to constitute a Market Committee for every notified area from such date as may be specified in the notification and the Market Committee so constituted shall be a body corporate. It is important to notice that sub-section 3(a) of Section 4 of the Act says that every Market Committee shall establish in the notified area such number of markets as the Government may from time to time direct for the purchase and sale of any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock and shall provide facilities in the market as may be specified by the Government from time to time, by general of special order. Sub-section 3 (b) of Section 4 directs that every Market Committee shall also establish in the notified area such number of markets as the Government may, from time to time, direct for the purchase and sale, solely of vegetables or fruits and shall provide such facilities in the market as may be specified by the Government from time to time. The Market Committee shall also declare by notification the limits of every market established by it under clause (a) and (b) and shall refer to as the market area.
16. Section 12 of the Act authorises the Market Committee to levy fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area. Notified area means any area declared to be market area by notification under Section 3 of the Act.
17. It is thus clear that the Market Committee shall have to first establish markets in the notified area and shall declare by notification the limits of every market established by it to be known as market area. Mere notification under Section 3 of the Act notifying the area for the purposes of the Act would be of no consequence, unless the Market Committee establishes in the said notified area the number of markets as the Government may from time to time direct by providing such facilities in the market as maybe specified by the Government from time to time. The limits of such markets established shall have to be declared by notification.
18. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is no mention whatsoever about either establishment of the markets or providing facilities in the market. Under those circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nothing is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition about the establishment of the markets and providing facilities in the market. There is no notification declaring the limits of such markets, if any, established by the Market Committee. Under these circumstances, the Market Committee cannot claim right to levy fee and on that count, cannot deprive the Municipality of its right to levy fee from the traders in the markets established, maintained and controlled by it.
19. Be that as it may, a reading of Sections 3 and 29 of the Act together would make it clear that the Government is authorised to notify any area comprised within the local limits of and jurisdiction of the Municipality as the notified area. Unlike the notification to be issued with other areas under Section 3 of the Act while declaring the notified area, the Government is bound to specify, specifically the area comprised within the local limits of jurisdiction of the Municipality. Mere declaration under Section 3 of the Act notifying the area cannot be construed as if it includes the markets already established, maintained and controlled by the Municipality. Unless the notification specifically notifies the area comprised within the local limits of jurisdiction of the Municipality, the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act notifying the area cannot be construed as if it includes the area comprised within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Municipality, merely because the name of the place is mentioned. A combined reading of Sections 3 and 29 of the Act would make it amply clear. Whenever an area which was hitherto in the local limits of jurisdiction of the Municipality is included in the notified area, it must be specifically stated that the notified area includes the area earlier comprised within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Municipality. Section 29 of the Act makes it abundantly clear. In the case on hand, Anantapur taluka is mentioned as the notified area. It is not possible to imply as if the notification had included the area comprised within the local limits of jurisdiction of Anantapur Municipality.
20. It is not something like taking over of markets already established and maintained by the Municipality. The Market Committee cannot be allowed to contend that it need not establish markets, provide facilities and infrastructure, yet can collect fee from the traders, because such market is situated within the notified area. It is here the distinction between the notified area and notified Market Committee, is required to be noticed. Section 12 of the Act authorises the Market Committee to levy fees on any notified agricultural produce etc. in the notified market area and not in the notified area. It presupposes establishment of markets and their maintenance and facilities to be provided by the Market Committee. Nothing is stated in the affidavit about the establishment, maintenance of the markets and providing facilities thereof.
21. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the Municipality has no jurisdiction or authority in law to issue the impugned notification in Roc.No. 5922/97-A1, dated 6-2-1998. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.