THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8325 OF 2010 Dated 15th April, 2010 Between: M/s.Arihant Phenochem, Hyderabad …Petitioner And The Director of Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Bankatlal Mandhani Counsel for the respondents: Sri V.V.N.Narayan Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in detaining lorry bearing No.MH 22/L-32 containing Toor of 169.25 quintals and demanding market fee of Rs.8,124/- in terms of notice, dated 09-04-2010, and collecting the said amount, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned Counsel for the petitioner- firm, Sri V.V.N.Narayan Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. According to the petitioner- firm, it purchased the above-mentioned stock from a dealer in Parbani, Maharashtra, and when the lorry transporting the Toor entered Andhra Pradesh, the officials of respondent No.2 have forcibly collected the above-mentioned amounts despite showing the documents. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Circular, dated 23-03-001, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in support of the plea of the petitioner that the Toor purchased in Maharashtra was being brought into Andhra Pradesh for milling and further processing and that it is not liable for levy by the Market Committee. In my opinion, the petitioner is required to produce sufficient evidence before the authority concerned for claiming refund of the amount already collected. Inasmuch as the market fees has already been collected, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a detailed representation along with supporting evidence before respondent No.2. If the petitioner- firm is able to satisfy that it purchased the Toor from a trader in Maharashtra and that the same was being transported into Andhra Pradesh only for the purpose of milling and processing, respondent No.2 shall consider its claim for refund. Such a representation shall be made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks form today. Within four weeks of receipt of such representation, respondent No.2 shall take appropriate decision in terms of Circular, dated 23-03-2001, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.10733 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th April, 2010 Note: Furnish CC in one week. (B/o) lur