IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10979 of 2009 Between: M/s Bhagyalakshmi Cashew Industries, Rep by its Proprietor, Vanka Venkata Subbarao, S/o. Rosaiah, aged 67, Vetapalem, Prakasham District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Director, Marketing Agriculture Department, Hyderabad. 2 Agriculture Market Committee, Chirala Prakasam District. Rep by its Special Grade Secretary. 3 Agriculture Market Committee, TUNI, East Godavari District, Rep by its Speical Grade SEcretary. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following: ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner-Industry has claimed a generic and omnibus relief to the effect that the respondents shall not levy and collect market fee on the cashew nuts purchased by it outside the notified areas of respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’). In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2- Special Grade Secretary, FAC, Agricultural Market Committee, Chirala, Prakasam District, it is inter alia stated that under Section 12 (1) of the Act, the Market Committee is entitled to levy and collect market fee on any livestock and products of livestock purchased or sold within the notified market area and that Explanation 1 to Section 12 (1) of the Act creates a legal fiction and raises a presumption, which, of course, is rebuttable that any notified produce taken out of the notified market area would be deemed to have been purchased or sold within the notified market area unless the contrary is proved. If the petitioner claims that the cashew nuts are being purchased by it from outside the notified market area and that no sale or purchase transactions are taking place within the notified market area of respondents 2 and 3, it is not liable for levy of such market fees. Therefore, as and when the respondents make a demand of such market fee, the petitioner is entitled to produce proof of purchase of the cashew nuts outside the market area to show that no sale or purchase transactions have taken place within the market areas of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Subject to showing such proof, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not levy any market fee on such transactions. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14120 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 19th June, 2009 Note: Furnish CC in one week. (B/o) LUR