HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18784 of 2004 Date : 04.08.2009 Between : B. Prabhakar Reddy. …..Petitioner And The Commissioner, Kukatpally Municipality, Hyderabad & 3 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18784 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is a farmer and resident of Balreddygudem village in Ranga Reddy District, seeks a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of respondents in removing the unauthorized vegetable vendors near Kukatpally Rytu Bazar, as mentioned in the complaint, dated 05.12.2003, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Government has established Rytu Bazars in the State, to facilitate farmers to sell vegetables and other agricultural produces, directly to the consumers on cost- to-cost basis. Petitioner is one of such farmers, who sell vegetables in Kukatpally Rytu Bazar. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that a parallel vegetable market is being run by some private persons near Kukatpally Rytu Bazar, due to which, the farmers in Rytu Bazar are deprived of their business. Therefore, all the farmers of Rytu Bazar have formed themselves as a ‘Rytu Committee’, and made a representation to the 4th respondent-Joint Collector on 05.12.2003, to remove the said parallel vegetable market being run by the private persons. It is stated that basing on their representation, the 4th respondent has issued instructions to the 1st respondent-Municipality to take necessary action in the matter. It is submitted that inspite of such directions, no action is taken against the unauthorized middle-men, who are causing loss to the actual farmers, who are selling their produce in the Rytu Bazar. 3. Though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, and there is also no representation on their behalf. 4. The very purpose and objective of establishing Rytu Bazars is to eliminate middle-men and provide maximum benefit to the farmers, and in the process, the consumers also will get fresh commodities at cheaper price. Thus, it is beneficial to both; the farmers as well as the consumers. If middle-men are allowed to do business near Rytu Bazars, it would certainly affect the interests of the farmers and also the consumers. Inspite of specific allegation made by the petitioner in the writ petition about the parallel market being run by the middle-men, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, controverting the said allegation. Further, when the petitioner and other farmers have made a representation to the 4th respondent-Joint Collector about this allegation, the 4th respondent has directed the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Kukatpally Municipality to initiate necessary steps for removal of such middle-men, but inspite of the same, no action has been taken so far, in the matter. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, in the absence of counter affidavit, and also as there is no representation on behalf of respondents, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing respondents 1, 2 and 4, to take necessary steps to remove the middle-men, who are doing business either in Kukatpally Rytu Bazar or in the places very nearer to it, and ensure that the rights and benefits of farmers as well as the consumers, who use the said Rytu Bazar, are protected. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th August 2009 ksh/ajr