THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13515 of 2011 BETWEEN: Sri Venkteswra Banana Fruit Merchants Welfare Society, Rep. by its Secretary, Sri M. Prakash …. PETITIONER And 1. The Directo of Agricultural Market Committee, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioner: Sri T. Janardhan Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: G.P. for Agriculture Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P. Bhanu Prakash Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri N. Bharat Babu The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioner is a society registered on 17.03.2011 under the Societies Registration Act, 2001. It consists of the following members: 1. S. Allabaksh 2. S.K. Kamal Basha 3. M. Prakash 4. A. Chandrasekhar 5. A. Balamukundas 6. S.A. Kaseem 7. K. Subbarayudu 8. G. Nagarjuna Raju 9. K. Venkatesh Naidu 10. D. Nageswar Rao. 11. M. Mani 12. K. Dasradharamaiah 13. K. Madhu 14. S. Gouse 15. Thangraj 16. V. Elumlai It is stated that the aforesaid members of the petitioner-society are carrying on the business of selling Bananas in the Agriculture Market, Tirupati since 1992. The 2nd respondent-Market Committee has constructed 15 shops for allotting them to the Banana traders, who are duly licenced under the A.P. (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’). The Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing Committee by his orders No. S- II(2)7258/2010, dated 10.03.2011 accorded permission to the 2nd respondent to let out the said shops to the traders subject to certain conditions, which inter alia stipulates that the allotments should be made as per the seniority of the licences issued by the Committee. In pursuance of the said orders, the 2nd respondent prepared a seniority list of the licence holders consisting of 20 members. Pursuant to the said seniority list, the 2nd respondent initiated the process of allotting the shops to the eligible persons. Meanwhile, the petitioner society filed this writ petition challenging the proposed allotment contending that they are the existing traders and are eligible for allotment, and the 2nd respondent ignoring their eligibility, was proceeding with the allotment to unqualified persons. The 2nd respondent filed a counter. It is stated that out of the 16 members of the petitioner-society, except four persons, viz., 1) S. Allabaksh, 2) M. Prakash, 3) A. Balamukundas and 4) K. Venkatesh Naidu, other members do not hold licence issued under the provisions of the Act. Thus it is stated that the petitioners have approached this Court without disclosing this fact, which is vital for allotment of shops. The 3rd respondent-society has filed a counter. While reiterating that except the four members referred to above the other members are not the licensees, it is stated that even among the four persons referred to above, except M. Prakash other three persons have obtained licences recently. Therefore, the said persons do not come within the zone of consideration as per their seniority. Heard Sri J. Ugranarasimha representing Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bhanu Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the material placed before this Court. Indisputably, the 2nd respondent has constructed 15 shops for allotment to the Banana traders, who have obtained licences under the Act. Section 7 (1) of the Act provides that no person shall set up, establish or carry on business in the notified area without a licence obtained in that regard. Therefore it is mandatory for any trader to obtain a licence in order to carry on business in the notified jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. Necessarily therefore an allottee of the shops should possess the licence under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner-society fairly submits that except the abovementioned four persons, the other persons do not have such licence and therefore not qualified for allotment. Even among the qualified persons including the four persons, namely, 1) S. Allabaksh, 2) M. Prakash, 3) A. Balamukundas and 4) K. Venkatesh Naidu, as per the orders of the Commissioner dated 10.03.2011, allotment should be made in accordance with the seniority of licensees. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this position also. Hence the process undertaken by the 2nd respondent to allot the shops basing on the seniority list to those holding licences under the Act cannot be said to be illegal. In the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The interim order granted on 30.04.2011 stands annulled. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 24th June, 2011 Js