IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16353 of 2007 Between: Konda Gorri Raju … Petitioner AND The Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture & Cooperation (MKTG 1-2) Dept., A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.S. Murthy Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Agriculture Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4 6, 7 to 10 and 14 to 16: Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu Counsel for respondent No.17: Sri K. Madhava Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16353 of 2007 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the main writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 20.07.2007 issued by respondent No.1, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1969. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu and Sri K.Madhava Reddy for the respective respondents. By the impugned G.O., the State of A.P. constituted Agricultural Market Committee for Parvathipuram, which comprised of Parvathipuram, Belagam, Garugubilli and G.M. Valasa Mandals. The grievance of the petitioner as projected by Sri K.S.Murthy, at the hearing, is that though there are scheduled villages included in the area in which the Parvathipuram Market Committee is constituted, without excluding the same, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have constituted the market committee in question. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in WA.No.1345 of 2006 and batch dated 18.01.2007, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, of which I am a party, held as under: “An analysis of the provisions of the 1966 Act shows that for regulating the sale and purchase of specified agricultural products, livestock or products of livestock, the State Government can notify a particular area as notified area (section 3). Section 4(1) casts a duty on the State Government to constitute a market committee for every notified area. Section 6 provides for reconstitution of the market committee. Section 7 declares that no person shall set up, establish or use or continue or allowed to be continued, any place for the purchase, sale, storage, weighment, curing, pressing or processing of any notified agricultural produce or products of livestock within a notified area except under and in accordance with the conditions of licence granted by the market committee. Section 12 provides for levy of fee by the market committee on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area. Section 13 empowers the market committee to levy a subscription for collecting and disseminating among the subscribers, information relating to statistics or marketing in respect of notified agricultural produce etc. Section 15 provides for spending of the market fund. If Section 4(3) had not been amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act No.16 of 2000, then an anomalous situation would have arisen inasmuch as even after constitution of the market committee by the State Government, the control of the markets situated in the Scheduled Areas would have remained with the Gram Panchayats. However, the fact of the matter is that in order to remove the apparent anomaly between the Central Legislation and the State Legislation i.e., the 1996 Act and the 1966 Act, the State legislature enacted the 2000 Act and excluded Scheduled Areas from the ambit of Section 4(3)(a) of the 1966 Act, which casts a duty on every market committee to establish markets in the notified areas as per the directions of the Government for the purchase and sale of any notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock and provide facilities in such market, as specified by the Government from time to time, by a general or special order. With this amendment, the market committees have been denuded of the power to establish markets in the Scheduled Areas and the management of the markets falling within the Scheduled Areas is the exclusive preserve of the Gram Panchayats. In our opinion, when the market committee cannot establish markets in the Scheduled Area, it cannot exercise powers and discharge functions specified in Sections 3, 7, 12 and 13 in respect of the markets situated in the Scheduled Areas. Thus, there cannot be any legal sanctity for constituting a market committee for the markets falling within the notified area, which forms part of the Scheduled Area.” This position is not disputed by the learned counsel representing the respondents. In view of the same, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is declared that the Agricultural Market Committee constituted under the impugned G.O. shall not exercise any of its powers in respect of the scheduled villages falling in the Mandals of Parvathipuram, Belagam, Garugubilli and G.M. Valasa. This shall necessarily mean that the market committee is entitled to exercise its powers in respect of the remaining area. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.20797 of 2007 and WVMP.Nos.2253 and 3106 of 2007 and 858 of 2008 are dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.03.2008 Note:- Issue CC in three days. B/o. ES