IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No:13544 OF 2009 Between: M/s. Venkaa Agro Foods, Rep by its Proprietor, V. Satyanarayana Swamy, S/o. V. Subbarao, Aged about 38 Years, Near Andhra Bank, Vetapalem Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Director, Marketing Agriculture Department, Hyderabad. 2 Agriculture Market Committee, TUNI-Prakasam District. Rep by its Speical Grade SEcretary. 3 Agriculture Market Committee, Chirala Prakasam District. Rep by its Special Grade Secretary. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for Respondent No.3:MR. K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in levying and collecting the market fee on the Cashews purchased by the petitioner Industry outside the notified areas of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short ‘the act’) and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to levy and collect the market fee on the Cashews at the check posts contrary to the provision of the Act 16 of 1966.” At the hearing, Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by order, dated 19.06.2009 in Writ Petition No.10979 of 2009. The said order reads as under: “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 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.” Since the point raised in this present writ petition is identical to the one raised in W.P.No.10979 of 2009, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed therein and reproduced above with the direction that the order passed in the said writ petition forms part of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.17608 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J July 8, 2009. Ivd/Kvni