IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 747 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/08/2006 in WP NO : 5386 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Special Grade Secretary Agricultural Market Committee Madnoor Nizamabad District 2 The Director of Marketing Govt of A.P Hyderabad 3 The Special Grade Secretary Agricultural Market Committee Madnoor, Nizamabad Dist ..... APPELLANT AND 1 M/s. Matheswari Cotton Traderss rep.by its Proceedings Shri Pramodkumar Madnoor ( V) Madnoor Mandal Nizamabad Dist 2 The Governmenty of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretrary Agricultural and Co-operation Department Secretariat Hyderabad 3 The Director of Marketing Government of A.P Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE WRIT APPEAL NO : 748 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/08/2006 in WP NO : 7117 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Madnoor, Nizamabad District.s ..... APPELLANT AND 1 M/s. Laxminarayana Cotton Co. rep. by its M.D. Sri Devikishan Bang, R/o. Madnoor (V), Madnoor (M), Nizamabad Dsitrict. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agricultural and Co-operation (Mktg.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Prsdesh Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: M/SC.KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL(SR) NO : 119599 of 2006 Between: The Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Madnoor, Nizamabad District. …Appellant and M/s Thrimula Ginning & Febres Pvt. Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, Sri Ghanshyamdasji, Madnoor and others. …Respondents. W.A. (SR) No. 119601 of 2006 Between: Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Madnoor, Nizamabad District. …Appellant And M/s Gajanan Industries, rep. By its Partner Shri Ramchender Rao, Madnoor and others. …Respondents W.A. (SR) No.119607 of 2006 Between: The Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Madnoor, Nizamabad District. …Appellant and M/s Narasimha Ginning Factory, rep. By its Partner Sri Suryakant, Madnoor and others. …Respondents. W.A (SR) No. 119608 of 2006 Between: The Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Madnoor. …Appellant. And M/s Ranganath Ginning Industry, rep. By its Partner Sri Devikishan Bang, Madnoor and others. …Respondents W.A (SR) No. 119609 of 2006 Between The Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Madnoor. …Appellant and M/s Venkatadri Industries, rep. By its Proprietor, Sri Govind Prashad, Madnoor and others …Respondents The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per RSR, J) All these writ appeals are filed against the common order dated 11- 8-2006 passed in W.P.Nos. 3090 of 2003 and batch by the learned Single Judge. The appellant- Agricultural Market Committee, Madnoor filed these appeals through their Special Grade Secretary assailing the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petitions were filed by the 1st respondent-Traders who are the agents covered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’). In the writ petitions they have questioned the demand notice demanding to pay the market fee based on the Best of Judgment in exercise of power under Section 12-B of the Act. In the writ petitions, it was the case of the petitioners that as much as no sales were effected within the notified market area of the appellant-Market committee, they were not liable to pay any market fee as assessed and demanded by the impugned notice. The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the goods which were weighed, loaded and transported by the petitioners were meant for consignment sales i.e., sales which were effected in other States, as such, those sales cannot be subjected to market fee by way of assessment made under Section 12-B of the Act. By recording the aforesaid finding, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. In this batch of appeals, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao that whether the sales were effected within the area of the Market committee or not, are the matters which requires enquiry. Thelearned counsel further submitted that the respondents-writ petitioners have straightaway approached this Court questioning the demand notices by way of writ petitions in spite of availability of alternative remedy of appeal and revision before the notified authorities under the Act. In the said context, it is stated, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the demand notices issued demanding to pay the market fee. It is not in dispute that in terms of the provisions under Section 12-B of the Act, the Market Committee can levy market fee only on the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock, purchase or sold in the notified market area only. From the very reading of the notices, which are the subject matter under challenge in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, clearly indicate that the said demand notices were issued by the appellant in exercise of power under Section 12-B of the Act based on the sales-tax returns filed by the dealers. In the notices, there is a clear indication that the sale of cotton seeds was effected outside the State of Andhra Pradesh during the year 2001-2002 and the tax demanded is in connection with the same. In view of the clear indication in the notices itself, no further enquiry need be conducted, whether such sales are effected within the notified market area or not. In view of the admitted position as indicated in the demand notices under challenge, it is clear that the market fee demanded is only for the sales effected by the dealers during the year 2001-2002 with regard to the sale of cotton seeds outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. In that view of the matter, merely because there is other alternative remedy available by way of appeal or revision under the Act, that itself is no reason to reject the writ petitions. While it is true that normally when the effective alternative remedy is there, this Court is slow in entertaining the writ petitions. But however, it is to be noticed that these writ petitions were filed in the year 2003 and were pending before this Court for the last 5 years. In view of this and taking into account the clear indication in the demand notices itself that sales were effected outside the State, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly entertained the writ petitions and allowed the same. As no other ground is urged, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. However, we make it clear that this order would not preclude the appellant-Market Committee from assessment of the market fee, if any sales were effected on the notified items by the respondents-writ petitioners during the year 2001-2002 within the notified market area of the appellant-Market Committee. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR