THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WAMP.No. 1908 OF 2008 IN (WA.SR.NO. 119610 OF 2006) WA.No.1151 OF 2008 IN WP.NO. 3090 OF 2003 O R D E R : ( Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari ) For the reasons explained in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition, the delay of 540 days caused in representing the WASR.No.119610 of 2008 is condoned. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. _______________________________ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. (WA.SR.No. 119610 OF 2006) WA.No. 1151 OF 2008 J U D G M E N T : ( Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the common order dated 11-8-2006 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No. 3090 of 2003, this writ appeal is preferred by the Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Madnoor, Nizamabad district. 2. When the matter is taken up today, Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this matter is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.747 of 2008 and batch, dated 22-7-2008, which reads as hereunder: 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. The learned 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. 3. Following the dicta laid down in WA.No.747 of 2008 & batch, dated 22-7-2008, this writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the S.R. stage. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. _______________________________ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 02-9-2008. I s L