THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.25816 of 2007 (Dated : 27-04-2010) Between: M/s.K.R.Ramulu Vegetable Commission Agent …Petitioner A n d The Commissioner & Director of Marketing Hyderabad and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.25816 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed assailing the proceedings No.AMC/B.Paly/A&R/215/95-96/332, dated 27-11-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent- Agricultural Market Committee, Bownepalli, whereby and whereunder, the licence issued in favour of Sri K.R.Ramulu has been cancelled. 2. The petitioner is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s.K.R.Ramulu Vegetable Commission Agent and it is a partnership firm. Under Section 7(1) of A.P. Markets Act, 1966, the partnership firm obtained licence from the Agricultural Market Committee, Bownepalli. The firm was initially run by Sri K.R.Ramulu and his family members. The partnership deed is dated 24.11.2002. The partners are the petitioner herein and his two brothers, namely, Bitla Sanjay and Bitla Sunil. The Deed of Partnership was registered with the Registrar of Firms on 4.12.2002. The Deed of Partnership was submitted before the 2nd respondent-Agricultural Market Committee, which is the licensing authority. Subsequently, K.R.Ramulu retired from the partnership by executing a deed of retirement dated 23.1.2003. The partnership came to be reconstituted and a deed of reconstitution of partnership came to be executed on 24.01.2003. While shifting the wholesale Vegetable Market to Bownepally, the 2nd respondent offered mulgies to the traders at newly constructed Bownepally yard on lease/sale basis. The petitioner firm made a request for allotment of shop at the yard on sale basis. The petitioner firm was allotted shop No.B14 in pursuance of drawing the lots in the lottery system. The total sale consideration fixed was Rs.9,25,000/- payable in five instalments. The petitioner firm paid instalments on 30.11.2002, 28.2.2004, 25.2.2005, 2.3.2006 and 10.3.2007. Sri K.R.Ramulu, who retired from the partnership firm initiated civil proceedings against the petitioner. In the civil proceedings, the petitioner firm became successful. While the proceedings were pending in Civil Court, K.R.Ramulu who is third respondent made a representation dated 20.8.2007 to the 2nd respondent and acting on the said representation, the 2nd respondent cancelled the licence. The said proceedings are impugned in this writ petition. 3. Rule nisi came to be ordered on 04.12.2007. On 14.12.2007, the following order came to be passed referring the matter to the Division Bench. “ Heard Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner, Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel representing the second respondent- vacate stay petitioner and Sri Raghveera Reddy, learned counsel representing the proposed party respondent No.3, who came on record and filed W.V.M.P.No.3267 of 2007. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 4.12.2007 and granted interim suspension for a limited period, after recording certain reasons. It is also specifically observed that the impugned order was made at the instance of the appellate authority and hence the remedy of appeal also would be a futile exercise. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel representing the second respondent-vacate stay petitioner had brought to the notice of this Court the order made by the Division Bench in W.P.No.20071 of 2007 wherein this Court referred the matter to the Division Bench. In the light of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in K.Siddi Ramappa v. Agricultural Marketing Committee, Osmangunj, Hyderabad and others [1989(3)ALT 45], it is also brought to the notice of this Court that when the said question was not answered, how the writ petition would be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Gangaiah Naidu made elaborate submissions on the ground that the facts are distinguishable. Even otherwise additional grounds are raised in the present writ petition and there cannot be any doubt at all relating to the maintainability of writ petition. No doubt, this had been controverted by both Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao and Sri Raghuveer Reddy, the learned counsel representing respective parties. Be that as it may, in the light of the view expressed by the learned Judge to the effect that when there are rival claims in respect of terms, such disputes to be resolved elsewhere but not in this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to be decided by an appropriate Division Bench in the light of the rival stands taken by the parties. In the light of the same, the interim suspension already granted is extended for a further period of six weeks. List the matter immediately before the appropriate Division Bench in view of the urgency pleaded by Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, and Sri Raghuveer Reddy”. 4 A Division Bench of this Court after considering the material and taking into account the civil disputes between the parties answered the reference as follows:- “ It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel Sri Gangaiah Naidu, representing the petitioner herein, that a civil Suit in O.S.No.1163 of 2003 had already been filed before the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, by the petitioner herein seeking permanent injunction against Mr.K.R.Ramulu, who according to the petitioner, had retired from the partnership. The said K.R.Ramulu, also filed O.S.No.152 of 2004 before the same Court claiming that heis the proprietor of the said firm. Evidently, both the parties have approached Civil Court and availing the remedies open to them. In view of this fact, we are of the considered view that with adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions raised by both the parties, the reference can be answered. Accordingly, the reference is answered directing the learned Single Judge to dispose of the matter on its own merits, with reference to the impugned order passed by the second respondent. We further direct that the interim orders passed earlier in the writ petition shall continue, till disposal of the writ petition”. 5. Hence, the matter is listed before me for Final Hearing. 6. Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel submits that civil disputes between the parties ended in favour of the petitioner firm, and therefore, any notice to the 3rd respondent cannot be construed as notice to the petitioner firm. 7. The factual aspect that the petitioner firm was not put on notice before issuing proceedings is not contradicted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 8. Such is the situation; the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is at liberty to initiate proceedings after putting on notice to the petitioner firm, if he is so advised, in accordance with the rules in force. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 27-04-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.25816 of 2007 (Dated : 27-04-2010)