Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing A. Hampayya vs The Secretary, Agricultural Market ... on 26 March, 1996

Sri Susheela Cotton Corporation And ... vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 24 February, 2005

30. Learned Advocate General relying upon the decision of this Court in A. Hampayya v. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee (Gooti), (DB), submitted that merely because the parent Act or one of the amended provisions has been reserved for the consideration of the President and received his assent, it is not mandatory and necessary that all amendments should be reserved for the assent of the President even if the amendments do not touch upon any subjects relating to any entry in the Concurrent List. This Court after referring to various decisions observed:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Vasavi Solvents, Guntakal vs Director Of A.P. Agricultural Market ... on 10 August, 1999

13. The next submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Section 12-B of the Act prohibits assessment of the market fee payable by the trader beyond the period of three years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is required to submit and produce the records and the account books for the years from 1977 to 1989, which is contrary to Section 12-B of the Act. I do not find any merit whatsoever in this contention. Section 12- B of the Act is amended by A.P. Act 4 of 1987, which has come into force with effect on 4-2-1987. Before the said amendment Act, there was no prohibition or restriction whatsoever preventing any assessment beyond a period of three years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. The proceedings against the petitioner and the other merchants were initiated as early as in the year 1974. The writ petition filed by the Guntakal Merchants Association, of which the petitioner is a Member was dismissed on 6-2-1976. The civil suit filed by the Guntakal Merchants' Association -OS No.7t8 of 1978 was dismissed on 31-8-1981 and the appeal suit, AS No.1777 of 1981, filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 1-8-1986. The writ petition filed by the petitioner - WP No.12814 of 1987 was dismissed on 28-7-1988, so also the writ appeal - WA No. 1221 of 1989 was dismissed on 19-3-1991. In all these proceedings either the petitioner or the Guntakal Merchants' Association obtained interim orders injuncting and restraining the respondent-Market Committee from proceeding against the petitioner and the Guntakal Merchants' Association in any manner whatsoever either to levy or collect the market fee from them. No assessment as such could be made by the respondent-Market Committee in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, as well as the civil Court. The petitioner immediately after dismissal of the review petition once again filed the present writ petition and obtained interim orders restraining the Market Committee from proceeding further in the matter, It may be pertinent to notice that, as on the date when the law was set in motion against this petitioner and the Members of the Guntakat Merchants' Association, there was no restriction whatsoever upon the Market Committee not to make any assessment or levy the market committee for the period beyond three years from the date of expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. The action initiated by the Market Committee against the petitioner got bogged down in the Courts on account of the untenable and unsustainable pleas put-forth by the petitioner. It is the petitioner who successfully prevented the Market Committee from discharging its statutory duty. It is the petitioner, who obtained interim orders from this Court, as well as the civil Court preventing the Market Committee from making assessment and levy of the market fee. The provisions of the amended Act have no application whatsoever insofar as the action initiated by the Market Committee for levying and collecting the market fee for the period before the Amendment Act 4 of 1987 came into force with effect from 4-2-1987. The contention advanced in this regard is totally devoid of merit.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B S Reddy - Full Document
1