Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Agricultural Markets Committee, ... vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. on 11 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)ALD659
ORDER V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The A.P. State Agricultural Markets Weighmen's Union ('Union'), Guntur and its President are the petitioners in W.P. No. 6182 of 2002. The Union filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur ('AMC' for brevity) in granting licence to additional weighmen without allegedly following the procedure laid down in the Circular issued by the Director of Marketing in Re. No. 1 (1) 816 of 2000, dated 29-5-2000 is illegal and arbitrary.
2. This Court admitted the writ petition on 22-2-2002 and by an order of even date in WPMP No. 3346 of 2002 restrained the AMC, Guntur from granting licences to additional weighmen until further orders. The AMC is now before this Court with an application being WVMP. No. 828 of 2002 praying to vacate the interim order dated 22-2-2002.
3. The case of the petitioner union is as follows. There are 109 weighmen working in the AMC, Guntur. There is no increase in the arrivals of chillies when compared to the previous marketing year and, therefore, there is no necessity to issue licences to additional weighmen. If licences are granted to additional weighmen the petitioners would not be able to get sufficient and adequate amounts towards weighing fees. They would also contend that a decision is being taken by the AMC ignoring directions issued by this Court in WP No. 3502 of 1994 as well as the circulars issued by the Director of Marketing from time to time, namely, 1-8-1997 and 29-5-2000.
4. The contentions made by the petitioner union are demurred by the AMC inter alia contending that the arrival of agricultural produce namely, dry chillies in the AMC has increased four-fold during the last decade, that the farmers and cultivators who come to the AMC are forced to stay upto 11-00 p.m., in the night due to inadequate number of weighmen and that in view of the increase in the fees for weighment from 0.45p to 0.60p. any hardship of the weighmen stands mitigated.
5. On the question of prima facie case, having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578, as well as a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Coastal Papers Limited v. Government of India, (DB), it is doubtful whether the existing licensee can question the grant of fresh licence or can question the licence granted to a rival. Further, having regard to the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969 ('the Rules'), the Director of Marketing could not have laid down the procedure for licensing weighmen nor can direct the concerned AMC to have prior consultation with the association of weighmen of AMC and also take prior approval for the proposal of increase additional licences.
6. Rule 49 of the Rules enables the Market Committee to grant licence to brokers, carting and clearing agents, warehouseman, weighman, measurer, surveyor, lorry owner etc. and also prescribes the form of application and form of licence to be made and to be given. It is no doubt true that under Section 33 of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 ('the Act'), the power to make rules, inheres in the Government.
The power to promulgate rules does not include power to give executive instructions in an area which is covered by the statutory rules. On what basis the number of weighman is to be decided? The Circular dated 29-5-2000 adverts to this aspect of the matter. The number of weighman is determined having regard to the object and intention of the Act, namely, to reduce the exploitative trends of middlemen and businessmen in relation to agricultural produce and to protect the economic interest of the agriculturists and cultivators. Be that as it may, the Circular dated 29-5-2000 clearly states that the Market Committee has to decide the number of weighmen required to be licensed for each Market Committee and other licensed premises every year at the commencement of the year keeping in view the factors like (i) the weighment must be done during day time; (ii) facilities for weighment should be such that it would enable the cultivator to return to his village on the same day and the weighment of the agricultural produce should be foolproof and the weighment slip in the prescribed form supplied by the AMC has to be reported by the weighman and signature of the seller has to be obtained thereon.
7. Coming to the facts again, the AMC, Guntur is one of the oldest among the Agricultural Market Committees. Before 1994, there were 70 licensed weighmen handling about 32.57.019 bags of dry chillies in Guntur market. When there was a proposal to increase the licensed weighmen, the petitioner union filed a writ petition being WP No. 3502 of 1994 mainly contenting that the Circular dated 29-5-2000 obliging the Market Committee to consult the Weighmen Association should not be given to go bye. The writ petition was disposed of on 27-7-2000 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the weighmen as per the Circular dated 29-5-2000. The petitioner submitted comments on 30-8-2000. The Joint Director of Marketing, Vijayawada has gone into the whole issue and having regard to the multi-fold increase in the dry chillies arriving at the market, opined that there is a need to increase the licensed weighmen. Be that as it may, another aspect of the matter, is the AMC, as back as on 28-3-2000 resolved to give 28 fresh licences and submitted proposals to the Director of Marketing on 7-4-2000. In the meanwhile, the Circular came to be issued on 29-5-2000 requiring the AMC to consult the Weighmen Association. After this Court passed interim order on 22-2-2002, there has been a change in the Circular in succession. The first Circular dated 15-3-2002 was issued, according to which, the AMC is not under an obligation to consult the Weighmen Association. Again on 28-3-2000, another circular was issued, rightly so leaving it to the AMC to issue licences to weighmen and others in accordance with Rule 49 of the Rules. All other earlier Circulars were withdrawn and the Director also observed that framing of separate guidelines is not desirable. In this context, the submission of Sri G. Vidyasagar that Circular dated 1-8-1997 requiring prior permission of the Director of Marketing for issuing additional licences is not superseded, is devoid of any merit. In my opinion, the Circular issued on 28-3-2002 projects the correct legal position and unless there are specific rules framed under Section 33 of the Act, it is not necessary for the AMC to obtain any permission from the Director of Marketing though the Director can lay down guidelines or modalities for fixing the minimum or maximum number of licensed weighmen having regard to the agricultural produce to be handled in a particular market yard. The learned Government Pleader, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi does not dispute this legal position. For these reasons, it is difficult to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. In this context, it is apt to quote the following observations of the Division Bench in Coastal Papers Limited (supra). .....The Supreme Court has held in several licensing cases such as Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros, , and Mithlesh Garg v. Union of India, , that where the right of an existing licensee is not infringed, it has no locus standi to question the grant of licence to another person even if it was contrary to the provisions of any statute of Rules'......If the appellant should feel that it is inadequate, as has been asserted in several representations, then it is a matter for review by the Government. If it is a question of meeting the risk by the subscribers to the capital, clearly it is a point which has to be. advertised in the prospectus of the company as one of the external risk factors. If the company feels that this risk factor cannot be managed without Government's support, all that we can say is that the appellant has to give way to another applicant who could manage that risk.
8. On the balance of convenience, as noticed hereinabove, as at present the cultivators and agriculturists are required to stay back in the market late in the night due to excessive arrivals of the produce in the market. The allegation is made that the members of the petitioner union are collecting an amount of Rs. 1.20 p. per bag though the Market Committee prescribed 0.60p. per bag of 40-45kg, which of course is denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is also brought out in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the AMC that issuing additional licences to weighmen in the AMC has been pending from 1994 and during these years is a constant and regular increase in the number of red chilly bags arriving in the market every year which aspect of the matter was also considered by the Joint Director of Marketing in his report dated 9-3-2002 which is on record. If the interim order passed by this Court restraining the second respondent Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur is continued, it would result in hardship to the farmers especially when admittedly the peak season for red chillies would be ending by May, 2002. The hardship brought by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the total monthly earnings of each of the weighman would be reduced to half and they would not be able to sustain themselves cannot be a relevant factor when matters are considered with reference to the object of the Act and also keeping view the interest of the farmers. A licence is issued to the weighman to carry on weighment in the Agricultural Market Committee subject to the conditions of licence and it does not, however, mean that a licensee cannot take up any. other avocation. As already held, the members of the petitioner union have no enforceable right to prevent the AMC to issue licences under Rule 49 of the Rules.
9. In the result, the interim order dated 22-2-2002 passed by this Court in WPMP No. 3346 of 2002 is vacated. WVMP. No. 828 of 2002 is allowed. WPMP No. 3346 of 2002 is dismissed.
Writ Petition No. 2782 of 200210. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Vidyasagar, submits that in view of the orders passed in WVMP No. 828 of 2002 and WPMP No. 3346 of 2002, nothing survives in the writ petition.
11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.