HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.395 of 2003 DATE:07-12-2010 BETWEEN The Agricultural Market Committee, Rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad. …Appellant AND Sri Balaji Dall Producers, Rep. by its Proprietor J.Venkateswarlu & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.395 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 04.04.2002 allowing Writ Petition No.17932 of 2001 holding that only such notified market committee in a notified market area, which is the destination as per the travel documents, is entitled to stop and check the vehicle and the market committees in different notified market areas, through which the agricultural produce is transported, are not entitled to stop and check the vehicle. The writ petitioners-respondents 1 to 19 herein, who import dal and pulses from the States of Maharashtra and Karnataka by paying requisite levy to various Market Committees and notified market areas in those states, contend that when they transported the agricultural produce purchased by them in the market areas of States of Maharashtra and Karnataka through the various Market Committees of respondents 2 to 29 in the writ petition, they are not liable to pay the market fee. The learned Single Judge of this Court after referring to Rule 75(2) of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Rules, 1966 declared that the respondents 2 to 29 in the writ petition are not entitled to collect any market fee from the writ petitioners in respect of agricultural produce, which is not shown to have purchased, or sold within the jurisdiction of the respondents 2 to 29 in the writ petition and also further declared that only such notified market committee in a notified market area, which is the destination as per the travel documents, is entitled to stop and check the vehicle and the market committees in different notified market areas, through which the agricultural produce is transported, are not entitled to stop and check the vehicle. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and verified the Rule, which has been re-produced in the impugned order. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 75 of the Rules postulates that any employee of the market committee authorized by it in this behalf shall have power at any time and without notice to stop and check any vehicle suspected to carry unauthorisedly any notified agricultural produce livestock or products of livestock from any place within the limits of any notified market area. ‘To carry unauthorisedly any notified agricultural produce’ is significant for the reason even if the contention of the writ petitioners is accepted that they have paid the market fee to the various market committees in the notified market areas of States of Maharashtra and Karnataka, where they have purchased agricultural produce and transported through the notified market committees i.e. the respondents 2 to 29 in the writ petition, they are not liable to pay the market fee. But in a given case, if some of the agricultural produce which was purchased by the transporters-writ petitioners has been sold in the notified market area and purchased different agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock from the market areas of respondents 2 to 29 in the writ petition, unless the person authorized by the market committee has verified the goods purchased in the State of Maharashtra alone are transferred and no other agricultural produce purchased within the notified area will not be made known. If that be the case, declaring that respondents 2 to 29 in the writ petition are not entitled to stop and check the vehicle will make the sub-Rule (2) of Rule 75 redundant. Therefore, the impugned order to the extent it declaring that the employees of the market committees of respondents 2 to 29 are not entitled to stop and check the vehicle cannot be justified and the same is accordingly deleted and the rest of the order in the writ petition is maintained. The writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. DECEMBER 07, 2010 Tsr.