APHC010119412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the Thirtieth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 6787 of 2026 Between: The Guntur Chillies Commission Agents Association ...Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Penumaka Venkata Rao Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Agriculture The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.6787 of 2026 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.1 to 3 in not considering the petitioner‟s representation dated 22.01.2026, submitted for passing necessary orders with respect to submission of affidavit about involvement of family members details that they are not the business partners with any other person to whom a licence is issued by the Market Committee either as purchaser or a commission agent as per the condition imposed under Clause 4 (h) of G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 28.09.2010 for issuance of fresh commission agent licence or renewal and further action of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 in insisting the members of the petitioner‟s association to fulfill the condition as mentioned in Clause 4 (h) in G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 28.09.2010 without issuing any notice and without there being any provision under the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, discriminative, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 as amended by Act 14 of 2015 and rules framed there under and contrary to the Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents Nos.1 to 3 to consider the petitioner‟s representation dated 22.01.2026 and pass…” 3 W.P.No.6787 of 2026 2. The case of the petitioner is, briefly, as follows: a. The petitioner is a registered association established with an object to look after all kinds of affairs of members of the association. It has more than 600 members of commission agents and doing business for several years in the market yard of the respondent No.4. b. As per the definition of the commission agent, a person who offers to do anything necessary for completing or carrying out purchase or sale on behalf of the trader or the farmer, as such, the commission agents are the purchasers or the sellers of the notified agriculture products etc., but they get commission fee as per the bye-laws. c. G.O.Ms.No.260, Agriculture and Cooperation (AM.IV), Department, dated 28.09.2010, imposes onerous conditions under Clause 4 (h) for issuance of fresh commission agent licence and its renewal. It reads as follows: “The applicant should submit an affidavit that he himself or any of his family members in case sole proprietor or any partner or their family members in case of partnership firm that they are not the business partners with any other persons to whom a licenses is issued by the Market Committee either as a purchaser or a Commission Agent.” d. The content of the government order has enhanced legal contradictions which are exceeding the administrative authority. A government order cannot override provisions of the Act. Therefore, the G.O.Ms.No.260 cannot override the provisions of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (in short „the Act‟) as amended by Act 14 of 2015. 4 W.P.No.6787 of 2026 e. Section 7 of the Act, after the amendment in the year 2015 mandates that no person shall operate as a trader or commission agent without a licence, however it does not grant the arbitrary power to the government or the committee to cap the number of licences based on necessity or demand unless specified in the rules. The provisions of the G.O. were inserted in the Act by way of legislation under Section 32 of the Act and the A.P. Market Rules, 1969 define the fees and security required for issuance of commission agent licenses. However, the financial burdens like high security deposits or bank guarantees are not explicitly mentioned in the Market Rules, 1969. It is overriding the legislative rule making process. f. The administrative orders cannot create financial liabilities that are not envisaged by the legislature in the rules. Limitations incorporated in Clause 4 (h) of the G.O.Ms.No.260 imposes restrictions on family members in doing business in violation of fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India regarding freedom of trade. Taking advantage of the said clause, the respondents Nos.4 and 5 have been interfering and creating difficulty in issuing the commission agent licenses or for their renewal. g. The petitioner approached the respondents at numerous occasions, but there was no proper response. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 22.01.2026 to the respondents Nos.1 to 4. They have not evinced their interest to look into the specific issues referred in the representation. Therefore, this writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted averments as in the petition. 5 W.P.No.6787 of 2026 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture, representing the respondents Nos.1 to 3 is present. 5. Sri G. Rajeswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Nos.4 and 5, placed on record a copy of written instructions of the Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Guntur, dated 18.03.2026. 6. The main gist of the written instructions is that in order to create healthy competition among commission agents and to eliminate monopoly and to encourage them to serve farmers‟ community in a better way, the condition No.4(h) is designed. 7. Since it is not an issue before this Court in the present writ petition to examine the validity of Clause 4(h) of G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 28.09.2010, this Court is not inclined to go into the question of examining its validity. 8. The prayer of the writ petitioner is grounded to examine the representation and do the needful. As such, the writ petition can be disposed of with reasonable directions. 9. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation dated 22.01.2026 submitted by the petitioner, within one (01) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 30.03.2026 NSM 6 W.P.No.6787 of 2026 66 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 6787 of 2026 Dated: 30.03.2026 NSM