WP/26378/2007 of Pajjuru Srinivas, Vs The Agricultural Market Committe, on 24 December 2007

Conclusion

O R D E R:

This court ordered notice before admission on 11.12.2007.

2. Heard Sri K.Laxmanachari, the learned counsel representing thepetitioner and the learned G.P. for Agriculture and Sri V.V.Narayana Rao,representing respondents.

3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action ofthe respondents in not issuing Commission Agent Licenses in favour of thepetitioners to carry on business in Agricultural Market Yard at Suryapet asillegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Act No.16 of 1966 and topass further orders.

4. It is stated that the petitioners had been carrying on business inNalgonda district particularly in Suryapet for last several years. Thepetitioners submitted applications, dated 26.10.2007, 22.10.2007,19.10.2007, 15.10.2007 respectively, before the respondent No.1 to issueCommission Agent License for the year 2007 and 2008. They had enclosedNational Savings Certificate for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each. The 1[st] and 2[nd]respondents received the applications submitted by al the petitioners, but didnot dispose of the said applications for issue of Commission Agents Licensewithin the time prescribed under the provisions of the Act No.16 of 1966 andRules made there under. It is further submitted that the Government ofAndhra Pradesh so far not issued any G.O. or Notification regulating or prohibiting commission Agents from operating in the Agricultural MarketYard. The respondents in the absence of such notification issued by theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh is bound to issue license in favour of thepetitioners. It is also further submitted that they were informed previously the1[st] respondents in fact decided to issue commission Agent Licenses in favourof some business persons. When it was brought to the notice of the 2[nd]respondent, the 2[nd] respondent addressed a letter dated 16.6.2006 to the 1[st]respondent stating to reject the pending applications submitted for issue ofCommission Agent Licenses. The reason shown in the said letter is thatthere are number of commission agents operating the Agricultural MarketYard. The extra commission Agents are not required. The 1[st] petitionersubmit that the issue of granting licenses in favour of commission Agents onthe basis of number of licenses operating in the Market yard cannot bedecided. When there are more number of Commission Agents operating inthe market yard there will be a competition among them and they will renderservices to the farmers. In fact the 2[nd] respondent in his letter dated 16.6.2006having found that more under of commission Agents would benefit thefarmers community in the Agricultural Yard but requested the 1[st] respondentto reject the applications. It is submitted when there is no Notificationlprohibiting or regulating commission agents in the Agricultural Market Yard,the respondents are bound to issue licenses in favour of the petitioners, ifthey are other wise eligible and qualified to be issued with licenses. It isfurther submitted that out applications are lying with the 1[st] respondent sincelong time. The 1[st] respondent being the competent authority for issue oflicenses is required to consider the application within the time framed in the provisions of Act 16 of 1966. The 2[nd] respondent in the absence ofnotification issued by the Government have no authority to regulate issue oflicenses. In such circumstances, the petitioners approached this courtpraying for the relief specified supra.

5. The order made in W.P.19169 of 2007 dated 24.9.2007 had beenplaced before this court and the said W.P. was disposed of observing ashereunder:

“This court ordered notice before admission on 10.9.2007. This Courtin W.P.No.15817 of 2007 dated 26[th] July, 2007 made the following order.

“The A.P.(Agricultural Produce & Live Stocks) Markets Act, 1966 (forshort ‘the Act’) provides for regulation of trade and business inagricultural produce and live stock, within the jurisdiction of notifiedmarkets. Section 7 of the Act prescribes the procedure for grantand renewal of licences. The petitioners claim to have submittedapplications for grant of licences. In case, they have complied withthe necessary requirements, they are entitled to be issued suchlicences. On the other hand, if the applications are defective, inany manner, the respondents are under obligation to intimate thereasons to the petitioners. Either way, the respondents ought tohave taken steps on the applications of the petitioners.”

6. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents totake necessary steps on the applications of the petitioners, within four (4)weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no orderas to costs.”

It is brought to the notice of this court that in the present writ petition also, the facts are similar and in view of the same, the writpetition is disposed of directing the respondents to take necessarysteps on the applications of the petitioners in accordance withSection 7(2) of the Act within six weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. No costs”.

7. In the light of the same and inasmuch as similar matters had beendisposed of with suitable directions, this writ petition is disposed of directingthe respondents to take necessary steps on the applications of the petitionersunder Section 7(2) of the Act within six weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. No costs.

24[th] December, 2007.

_________________

P.S.NARAYANA,J

PNV

Date:24 -12-2007