IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 25020 of 2002 Between: Mr.M.Yellaiah, S/o Late Maraiah, M/s. Gururaj Mini Roller Flour Mills, 1-30, Bahadoorguda, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Reveneue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. 2 The District Collector, Rangareddy District, Lakadi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad. 3 The Hyderabad Agricultural Market Committee Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary, New Usmangunj, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records and issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the impugned proceedings dated 19.6.2001 of the 1st respondent, signed by the Revenue Inspector and the proceedings No.D4/5513/1997 dated 1.1.2001 of the 2nd respondent being without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of the principles of Natural Justice and consequently to issue a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from resorting to any coercive action for recovery of arrears of Market fee through the respective impugned proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondents, Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 25020 of 2002 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 19.6.2001 of the 1st respondent, signed by the Revenue Inspector, and the proceedings No.D4/5513/1997 dated 1.1.2001 of the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; consequently, to direct the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from resorting to any coercive action for recovery of arrears of market fee. It appears, the Hyderabad Agricultural Market Committee – 3rd respondent herein issued a demand notice dated 29.3.1989 calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,90,108.25ps. towards market fee for the period - December 1982 to March 1988 – and also to pay an amount of Rs.3,80,216.50ps. towards penalty. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. 5239 of 1989 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed on 18.3.1997 and the said dismissal attained finality before the Supreme Court. Thereafter, in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, which has attained finality, the 3rd respondent issued demand notice dated 29.5.1997 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.11,34,222.75ps. However, the petitioner did not respond to the same. Thereafter, the impugned notice dated 19.6.2001 was issued by the 1st respondent requiring the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.11,34,222.75ps. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the 1st respondent ought not to have issued the impugned notice dated 19.6.2001 as the 3rd respondent-Market Committee failed to discharge its statutory function under Sub-Rule (xix) of Rule 27 read with Sub-Rule (i) of Rule 27 of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Rules in instituting suit against the petitioner for recovery of the amount due within three years from the date of dismissal of the writ petition i.e. 18.3.1997; hence, the respondents have no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. This approach made by the petitioner is atrocious. Even according to the petitioner, the dismissal of W.P. 5239 of 1989 dated 18.3.1997 attained finality before the Supreme Court and what was under challenge in the said writ petition was the demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. The proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act would be initiated only after assessment is decided and if it is not paid by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the proceedings in the demand notice dated 29.3.1989 attained finality. Therefore, nothing remained for the respondents except to follow the order of this Court in W.P. 5239 of 1989. In view of the dismissal of W.P. 5239 of 1989, a fresh demand notice was issued on 29.5.1997 for Rs.11,34,222.75ps. inclusive of interest accrued till that date, under the Revenue Recovery Act. When it was not paid, another demand notice was issued on 19.6.2001, which is under challenge in this writ petition. I am of the opinion that once the demand raised by the respondents in the earlier proceedings attained finality, the question of again considering the same or challenging the present demand notice as without jurisdiction does not arise. The method adopted by the petitioner is nothing but abuse of judicial process. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 10-7-2009. MVB.