OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATj^Q^^^ ,. THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR IN THE HIGH COURT [•§( f.vrJ o ''S TUESDAY 33, /■ '// THE HONOURABLE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI THE WRIT APPEAl NO: 821 OF 2024 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent order dated 13 09.2024 in WP No. 19990/2024, on the file of the High Court. Between; Ghana Venkata Ravi S/- ^^^['Sabfp^ata^RVhuirpXuvS^^ S^lt/o.D%".!8-9“lt7tArd\“o.®nfvfnLte^^^ SPSR Nellore District. ...appellant AND 2 The Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Vijayawada. District Agricultural Marketing Officer, SPSR Nellore District. Grade Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Nellore 3. The 4 The Selection SPSR Nellore District. 5 The Higher Grade Secretary SPSR Nellore District. Agricultural Market Committee, Nellore, ...respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be suspend the orders passed in W.P.No. 19990/ respondents to permit the petitioner to Petition pleased to Dt.13.09.2024 by directing the conduct the market by virtue of license No.11-B/2022-27, dt.31.05.2022, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the notice in Rc.No.68/2023, dt. 19.08.2024 issued by the 5TH respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. _ Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C. SUBODH ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : SRI GANGISETTY RAJESWARA RAO, SC FOR AMC The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010421992024 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 821 of 2024 Challa Venkata Ravi Kumar ...Appellant Vs. The State of A.P. and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellant Advocate for respondents Sri C. Subodh Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, Sri Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees. CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 25th February 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ (Oral): The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2024 passed in W.P.No. 19990 of 2024 whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- on the ground that the petitioner had an equally efficacious alternate remedy by way of an appeal and that the petitioner resorted to invoke the writ jurisdiction even when he could have availed the remedy of appeal under Rule 53 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969 (for short, “the Rules of 1969”). J 1 The appellant herein had preferred the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Higher Grade Secretary of the Agriculture Market Committee, Nellore dated 19.08.2024, whereby, the appellant had been directed not to conduct market operations in terms of the license issued in his favour by the Agriculture Market Committee, Nellore, on the basis that there had been a complaint received by the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) Department of the Andhra Pradesh Government informing the said officer that there was misuse of animals and illegal trafficking of animals was being conducted by the petitioner/appellant. Based upon the information/complaint received by the A.C.B., the Higher Grade Secretary of the Agriculture Market Committee, Nellore had proceeded to issue the impugned order dated 19.08.2024, which was challenged by the petitioner/appellant by way of a writ petition before the learned single Judge. 2. 3. The main ground of challenge before the learned single Judge was that the Higher Grade Secretary of the Agriculture Market Committee, Nellore had no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned and assuming that there was any such power vested in him, the said order directing the appellant to stop market operations was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Reliance in this regard is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on Rule 52 of the Rules of 1969 dealing with suspension or cancellation of licenses, according to which, it is only the Director of Marketing or the officer authorized by him who has the power to cancel or suspend for a 3 specified period any license granted by him. Apart from this, according to Rule 52(1), the Market Committee also, may, by resolution passed in a meeting or by circulation and approval of majority of its members, cancel suspend for a specified period any license granted by it, if the said authority is satisfied that the holder of the license among others had violated any of the terms and conditions of the license or the provisions of the Rules. or For purposes of facility of reference. Rules 52(1) & 52 (2) of the Rules of 1969 are reproduced herein:- “Suspension or Cancellation of Licences : 5. (1) The Director of Marketing or the officer authorized by him may cancel or suspend for a specified period any licence granted by him or the market committee may by a resolution passed in a meeting by circulation and approved by a majority of its members, cancel suspend for specified period any licence granted by it, if the said authority is satisfied that: (a) the licence has been obtained through wilful misrepresentation fraud; or (b) the holder thereof or any servant or anyone acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission commits a breach of any of the terms or conditions of the licence or the provisions of these rules or the bye-laws of the market committee: or (c) the holder of the licence in combination with other holders of licences commits any act or abstains from carrying out his normal business in the market with the intention of wilfully obstructing, suspending or stopping the marketing of any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock in the market area in consequence whereof the marketing of such notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock has been obstructed, suspended or stopped; or (d) the holder of the licence has become an insolvent; or (e) the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence under the Act or or or 4 (2) The Director of Marketing or officer authorized by him or the Market Committee before cancelling or suspending the licence granted under sub-rule (1) shall issue a notice to the person concerned calling upon him to show cause within seven days from the service thereof, why the licence should not be cancelled suspended and consider his reply thereto if any, received from him before the expiry of the time specified in the notice: Provided further that the Chairman, Market Committee may suspend the licence of a person who obtains licence under section 7 or rule 49 for a period not exceeding 7 days pending ratification by the Market Committee.” or Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to Rule 52(2) of the Rules of 1969, as reproduced herein above, which envisages the issuance of notice to the licensee for purposes of calling upon him to show cause as to why the license be not cancelled or suspended and to consider his reply thereto, if any, before the expiry of the time specified. 6. It is in the context of the rules supra the learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the Higher Grade Secretary was neither authorized to pass the order impugned dated 19.08.2024 nor were the principles of natural justice followed as otherwise envisaged in Rule 52(2) of the Rules of 7. 1969. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly stated that even when the writ petition came to be dismissed at the admission stage and that there was no counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents before the learned single Judge, yet, it was stated that no show notice in terms of Rule -- 52(2) of the Rules of 1969 had been served upon the appellant. I 5 Even on the question of jurisdiction, learned counsel for the 9. respondents stated that there was no specific order to his knowledge, which would have authorized the Higher Grade Secretary to pass the order impugned in the absence of any such power conferred upon the said Secretary by the Director of Marketing. 10. On a perusal of the order impugned, it can be seen that the said order does not at all make any reference to any show cause notice, which was otherwise required to be served upon the appellant in terms of Rule 52(2) of the Rules of 1969 was ever served. In the absence of such a notice, which is otherwise mandatory, the order impugned would certainly become unsustainable. 11. Even on the question of jurisdiction, once it appears that the Higher Grade Secretary of the Agriculture Market Committee had not been conferred with any power to pass any such order much less to the respondents and while it may be true that there was an alternate remedy available to the petitioner in terms of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1969, yet, it is no longer res Integra that this Court could exercise its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not withstanding the availability of an alternate remedy in certain exceptions, which had been carved out by the Apex Court in M/s.Radha Krishan Industries vs The State of Himachal Pradesh\ which crystalises the situations where such a power could be exercised viz., (a) the ' (2021) 6 see 771 4 writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. In our opinion, the view expressed by the learned single Judge is not legally sustainable, as the presence of an alternate remedy, by itself, would not have prevented the learned single Judge from going into the question as to whether the order impugned could be sustained on account of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice. 12. Be that as it may, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 13.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.19990 of 2024. However, the official respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action, if so advised, against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and the Rules framed there under. No order as to costs. 13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- Nl.RANlESH BABU DEP^UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFiCER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of AP, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Agriculture and^ Cooperation Department, Vijayawada. 3. The District Agricultural Marketing Officer, SPSR Nellore District 4. The Selection Grade Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 5. The Higher Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 6. One CC to Sri C. Subodh, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Agriculture, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT], 8. One CC to Sri Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, SC for AMC(OPUC) 9. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.821 of 2024 13 MAR 2025 O^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS