APHC010161742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION N BETWEEN: D. Firoj Ali Khan, The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A HANUMANTHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE 3. ASHOK KONDETI 4. Gangisetty Rajeswara rao,Standing Counsel For Agricultural Marketing Committees The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No: 8308/2024 ...Petitioner AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) Counsel for the Petitioner: A HANUMANTHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE GP FOR AGRICULTURE ASHOK KONDETI Gangisetty Rajeswara rao,Standing Counsel For Agricultural Marketing Committees The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO ...Petitioner ...Respondent(s) Gangisetty Rajeswara rao,Standing Counsel For Agricultural 2 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s: ….pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders issued by the 3rd respondent herein PROCS No.TR45/2018-2023, dt. 6.1.2024 in respect to Shop Room No.16 (Plot No.12 of Kadapa lands) of 3rd respondent Market Yard as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Marked Act of 1966 and Rules of 1969 made there under and also one without jurisdiction and violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the constitution of India and thereby consequently direct the 3rd respondent Market Yard to permit the Petitioner to continue to his business as per the general license terms as granted by the 3rd respondent herein by setting aside the above impugned order dated 06.01.2024 and pass such other or further orders…….. 2. In addition to the above prayer, by way of better affidavit, it is further prayed that the 3rd respondent may be directed to remove the lock fixed to shop No.16 (Plot No.13 of Kadapa old 3 Market Yard, Kadapa, forthwith, and to award compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for breaching the statutory fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The facts that are germane for the disposal of the case, and the case of the petitioner is as follows: The Cuddaph Turmeric Merchant’s Association, gave a representation expressing their grievance about incurring huge losses due to turning their turmeric produce into spoiled and unwanted commodity due to ejection of bad smell and emitting unwanted heat and gasses because of the refrigeration process, thereby the fruit business conducted by the petitioner is not only against the agreement conditions signed by the petitioner and also contrary to the pre-set / pre-approved conditions framed for the purpose of allotment of such plots as well as in violation of bye-laws and Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock Markets Rules) [for short Rules] 4. On receipt of such notice from The Cuddaph Turmeric Merchant’s Association, a show cause notice dated 25.11.2022 was issued to the petitioner herein duly directing why license should not be cancelled for violating agreement by way of 4 constructing cold storage godown at Shop No.16, (on Plot No.13, old market yard). 5. Assailing the said notice dated 25.11.2022, of the 3rd respondent-Market-Committee, a Writ Petition No.1137 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner herein and the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the petitioner herein to submit his explanation to the notice dated 25.11.2022 and after submitting the said explanation, directed the 3rd respondent herein to consider and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the petitioner herein submitted his explanation and after consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has delivered the impugned speaking order dated 06.01.2024, directing the petitioner herein to stop his business operations within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the impugned order, failing which the individual liable both departmental action and judicial prosecution. 6. Assailing the said order dated 06.01.2024, wherein and whereby, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner herein to close the shop on the grounds: 5 (A) The petitioner herein has installed two units which are slightly high powered A.Cs and they are installed on the rooftop and therefore possibility of affecting the stocks of neighbouring traders in whose godowns, where Turmeric, Sunflower and Groundnut are stored. The petitioner’s godown does not have any openings outsides such as windows, ventilators, skylights. Therefore, the possibility of adversely affecting the stocks of the other traders by the emissions from the petitioner’s shop is practically nil. (B) Since, fruits and vegetables are de-notified by G.O.Ms.No.13 Agriculture and Co-Operation (MKTG-II) Department dated 31.01.2019, the question of obtaining any licence for trading in fruits subsequent to coming into force of G.O.Ms.No.13 does not arise. As of that date, no licence is required. (C) The predecessor in title of the petitioner was one Sri C.Gokul Sai S/o. Sri C. Chandrasekhar has sold shop No.16 in Plot No.13, Old Market area through G.P.A. Holder, Mr. Narayana Venkata Subbaiah S/o. Late Narayana Bala Subbaiah for execution of sale deed on behalf of vendors with some conditions. All the conditions that are stipulated in the licence given to the petitioner are statutory conditions as stipulated in Form No.8-A prescribed under Rule 48 of The Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Marketing Rules, 1969. There is no condition incorporated in the licence that the petitioner should trade in specified agriculture commodities like turmeric, groundnut, gingelly 6 seeds/ sunflower or any other commodity. After deletion from Schedule-II of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Act, all fruits and vegetables, there is no requirement of having any licence, hence, the impugned speaking order is liable to be set aside. (D) Licence should not be cancelled for violation of rules and agreement. (E) No licence is required for doing fruits and vegetable business. (F) It is further asserted that after expiry of the petitioner’s licence on 31.03.2023, the petitioner herein has applied for licence by paying Rs.50,000/- voluntary security deposit amount, vide Book No.1875 and receipt No.187483, dated 17.10.2023 issued by the Agricultural Market Committee, Kadapa, in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 02.07.2019. Therefore, the contention of the respondent is contrary to the facts and prayed to set aside the speaking order dated 06.01.2022. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others1. The Judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court is well known for the proposition that the opposite 1 1978 (1) SCC 405 = AIR 1978 SC 851 7 parties cannot justify their action by assigning the reasons in the counter affidavit, in the absence of any reasons placed on record in its proper perspective. 8. The judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case and it is not the case of the petitioner herein that the respondents have improved, their case by way of counter affidavit. Hence, the judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case. Contentions of the respondents: 9. The 3rd respondent has filed its counter affidavit that the petitioner has been allotted with room No.16 in the new market yard, Kadapa, on rental basis, where all other licensed fruit traders of AMC, Kadapa, accommodated since 2013. The licence of the petitioner’s fruit business has been renewed vide license No.TR45/2018-2023 with a validation of lience from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2023 and the petitioner has purchased shop- cum-godown existing in plot No.13, situated in the old Market Yard, AMC Kadapa and he has agreed that he will conduct trade of notified agricultural commodities like turmeric, groundnut, gingelly seeds and sunflowers and if the petitioner fails to do so 8 (or) violates the agreement, he shall be held liable for all the actions to be taken by the AMC Kadapa. 10. Be that as it may the association members have requested to take action to stop the construction of cold storage by the petitioner in the shop-cum-godown No.16/329 (in Shop No.16, existing in the plot No.13 situated in the old Market yard, Kadapa), due to ejection of bad smell and emitting unwanted heat and gasses because of the refrigeration process upon which the cold room (Plot No.13 in Sy.No.12 of Kadapa lands) is functioning in the vicinity/besides the shop rooms in which turmeric/ ground nut//sunflower are stored. In response to the above, the 3rd respondent had insisted the individual to stop the construction of cold storage, in the shop-cum-godown No.16 on plot No.13, where the petitioner illegally constructing cold storage installing air-conditions. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioner herein to stop the construction of the cold storage at shop-cum-godown No.16/329 vide notice dated 25.11.2022 and the same was assailed in W.P. No.1137 of 2023 before this Court and the same was disposed of directing the petitioner herein to submit explanation and seeing the said explanation, the 3rd respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law 9 after giving opportunity to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the order was passed and delivered to the petitioner herein to close the shop within two months and the same was assailed in the present Writ Petition on the irrelevant grounds. There is no illegality in the speaking order. On the basis of the complaint given by the Turmeric Merchants Association, after following the procedure and as directed by this Court in W.P. No.1137 of 2023, the impugned order was passed and the conditions mentioned in the sale deed are binding upon the petitioner. Therefore prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 11. The unofficial respondents No.4 and 5 filed I.A. No.2 of 2024 to implead them as party respondents to the Writ Petition and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.04.2024 and the unofficial respondents brought on record and they also contended in the same manner as 3rd respondents. The same defence that was raised by the 3rd respondent, raised by the implead respondents in the Writ Petition, stating that the conditions in the Sale Deed executed by the vendor of the petitioner are binding on the petitioner as per the conditions stipulated in the sale deed. The petitioner shall carry business as specified by the Agricultural Committee. However, the Petitioner has installed air-conditions 10 for cold storage purposes, the emission from the air-condition is causing damage to the neighbouring traders’ business. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 12. After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts addressed by the both the counsels the Court delivers the following order: 13. The market committee announced its intention to regulate the sale and purchase of agricultural products, livestock, and livestock products in the areas designated by the notification in the market area. 14. It is the contention of the writ petitioner installation of air conditioners for cold storage purpose, no condition was incorporated in the license requiring the petitioner to trade in specified agricultural commodities such as turmeric, groundnut, gingerly seeds, sunflower, or any other commodity, relying on the government orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 58, dated 02.07.2019, which de-notified fruits and vegetables from the list of notified commodities specified in Schedule-II, superseding G.O. Ms. No. 13, Agriculture & Co-operation (Mktg.II) Department, dated 31.01.2019. The writ petitioner did not dispute the area designated for turmeric, groundnut, gingelly seeds, sunflower, or 11 any other commodity vendors, as stated in the counter filed by the market committee. 15. Counsel for the respondents would submit that when particular area was earmarked to conduct particular business and the shop No.16 (in plot No 13 in old market area) was allotted for conducting business of turmeric whence it is notified for particular purpose the writ petitioner cannot install any air conditioner other than the allotment given to the vendor of the writ petitioner beyond for it was allotted and the notified areas means an area requiring special attention considering its overall operation of traders. In addition it is stated that shop No.16 (in plot No 13 in old market area was) allotted to the vendor of the petitioner for doing turmeric business while the vendor has sold the property to the writ petitioner a condition was incorporated in the sale deed the same is extracted hereunder for facility: [అۃࡍకలऐ ࡛ ࠪࡓए ݋ కܾࠫ ࢐ࡏ ޘ࡯ߧన సదࡏ వङ వࣃయ పంటల ࢐ङߦర࠭ ۯ࠾ ߖࠫతफం ࠪऴత࠱ ऴక࠼ంచవలࣄన޴ [This sale deed is executed only for the purpose of carrying on business as specified by the Agriculture Market Committee ] 12 16. The counsel for respondent 4 & 5 would vehemently oppose that the writ petitioner cannot install air conditioners in shop No-16 (in plot No 13 old market areas) when permission was given to do turmeric business to the vendor of the writ petitioner. 17. Any area that was declared by the market committee to be a "market area" for the particular purposes i.e.,for to do business of turmeric in this case not in respect of all or any of the kinds of agricultural produce, by virtue of convention and protocol. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no place in that area could be used for purchase or sale of any agricultural produce specified in the notification, except in accordance with the permission granted to the petitioner. 18. When the market committee has given permission to the vendor of the writ petitioner to do particular business, the condition will transfer to the vendee and the condition indicated in the registered sale deed would be binding on the writ petitioner and the clause embodied in the sale deed is an integral part thereof and that clause is binding on the writ petitioner unless it declared by the competent court the condition is non-est by 13 adducing evidence, because when the vendor of writ petitioner has obtained the shop/property for doing particular business from the market committee. 19. And it is not the case of the writ petitioner that the said condition containing the clause was ever entered into at all by the vendor of the writ petitioner or the said or was void ab initio, illegal, or obtained (for example) by fraud duress or undue influence by the market committee from the vendor of the petitioner so that to say the clause does not apply to the writ petitioner. 20. The vendor of the writ petitioner has vended the property only for the purpose to carry on business as specified by the Agriculture Market Committee since it was granted to him on the express understanding that it has to be used by him and by for particular purpose, its use by the writ petitioner would involve a transfer in precisely the same way as it would the vendor of the property vended. 21. The petitioner was allotted Shop No. 16 in the newly notified area, but the petitioner has installed an air conditioner in Shop No. 16 (located in Plot No. 13 of the old market area) for 14 cold storage purpose, where the petitioner purchased the property from a vendor who sold the property with specific conditions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that no conditions were incorporated in the license, particularly the condition that the petitioner should trade in specified agricultural commodities such as turmeric, groundnut, gingelly seeds, sunflower, or any other commodity, in reliance on government orders issued vide GO Ms No. 58 dated 02.07.2019. 22. The writ petitioner will not deny or disregard the fact that the petitioner was given Shop No. 16 in the extended notified area; however, the petitioner has installed an air conditioner for cold storage purposes in Shop No. 16 (which is located in Plot No. 13 of the old market area). The petitioner purchased the property from a vendor who sold the property with specific conditions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that no conditions were incorporated in the license, particularly the condition that the petitioner should trade in specified agricultural commodities such as turmeric, groundnut, gingelly seeds, sunflower, or any other commodity, in reliance on government orders issued vide GO Ms No. 58 dated 02.07.2019. 15 23. The writ petitioner cannot install or establish an air conditioner in Shop No. 16 (in Plot No. 13, Old Market Area) on the grounds that no condition was incorporated in the license requiring the petitioner to trade in specified agricultural commodities such as turmeric, groundnut, gingerly seeds, sunflower, or any other commodity, relying on the government orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 58, dated 02.07.2019, which de- notified fruits and vegetables from the list of notified commodities specified in Schedule-II, superseding G.O. Ms. No. 13, Agriculture & Co-operation (Mktg.II) Department, dated 31-01-2019. The writ petition lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 11.02.2025 Harin 16 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO 1 W.P.No. 8308 OF 2024 Date: 11-02-2025 Harin