HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.24379 of 2005 Order: The petitioner, a trader and a commission agent under the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) has filed this writ petition seeking directions by way of Mandamus, directing the respondents to follow the provisions of Sections 12(A), 12(B) and 12(C) of the Act, Rule 74(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’) and Byelaw 24(3) of the Byelaws and further to direct them not to collect market fees on the onions transported by him from the State of Karnataka to Andhra Pradesh. 2. The petitioner is a licencee under Section 7 of the Act and also a commission agent on the notified products under the provisions of the Act. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that, for the purpose of his business, the petitioner purchased onions in the State of Karnataka and transported the same to his place of business in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It is his case that during transit, the truck carrying onions was passing through Hindupur in Anantapur District and though there is no sale or purchase of the said commodity in the notified area, i.e. Hindupur, the officials of the second respondent, at the check post, forcibly collected market fees on the said commodity, illegally. The further grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of proof of paying market fees to the second respondent, the first respondent- market committee has again demanded market fees, while selling the said commodities in the notified area of the first respondent-market committee. The case of the petitioner is that collection of market fees from him in the notified area of the second respondent in absence of any sale or purchase of the commodities in the said area is illegal and having regard to proof of payment of such market fees once, the first respondent was not entitle to collect further market fees, as the commodities which were being transported by him had already been subjected to market fees by the second respondent. 3. Separate counter affidavits are filed by first and second respondents. The Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent-market committee stating that though the petitioner, as a commission agent, is not entitled to purchase commodities outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, he has purchased onions from the State of Karnataka and is selling the same by open auction in the sub-market yard and collecting market fees from the purchasers. It is stated that the petitioner is liable to pay market fees in view of transaction of sale of the notified product within the area of the first respondent-market committee. Similarly, in the counter affidavit filed by the Special Grade Secretary on behalf of the second respondent-Agricultural Market Committee, Hindupur, Anantapur District, it is stated that as the petitioner has purchased onions in the State of Karnataka for sale in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as such, while entering the State of Andhra Pradesh, through the first check post, the petitioner has to pay market fees. Further, it is stated that as the petitioner has paid the market fees at the first check post within the notified area of the second respondent-market committee, he can seek exemption from paying further market fees elsewhere. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 5. As per Section 12 of the Act, the market committees are empowered to levy fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area at such rate not exceeding two rupees as may be specified in the byelaws for every hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is purchased or sold, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration. In this case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he has purchased onions from the State of Karnataka and transported the same to his place of business, which is in the notified area of the Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad. It is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that there is no sale or purchase within the notified area of the second respondent-market committee and the same is not denied by the second respondent in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is merely stated that as much as the vehicle carrying onions purchased from the State of Karnataka has entered Andhra Pradesh limits, it is entitled to collect market fees. However, the said statement cannot be accepted for the reason that merely because the vehicle carrying onions was passing through the notified area of the second respondent, they are not entitled to collect any amount in absence of any purchase or sale of the commodity in the notified area of the second respondent. So far as demand of market fees by the first respondent- market committee is concerned, in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is clearly stated that as the petitioner bought the commodity, i.e. onions in the State of Karnataka and is selling the same in the notified area of the first respondent-market committee, they are entitled to collect market fees from him. As much as no specific instance is referred to wherein market fees is forcibly collected, no direction can be issued to the second respondent to refund the amount collected, but in view of the allegation made by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent- market committee not to collect market fees from the petitioner towards the commodity which he has purchased from the State of Karnataka on the ground that the same is passing through the notified area of the first respondent-market committee. So as to ascertain whether such commodity is purchased within any of the notified areas of the market committees of Andhra Pradesh, it is always open to the respondents to scrutinize documents in support of purchase of such commodity. On scrutiny of documents, if they are satisfied that the commodity is not purchased within any of the notified areas of the market committees of Andhra Pradesh, they should allow to pass the commodity from the respective notified area without insisting for payment of any market fees. As much as the petitioner is doing business by purchasing commodities outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and selling the same within the notified area of the first respondent-market committee, he is liable to pay market fees to the first respondent henceforth. It is made clear that while charging market fees, the first respondent-market committee shall take into account the fees already paid by the petitioner, to the market committees, if any, and extend the benefit of Rule 74 of the Rules to the petitioner. 6. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August 21, 2009 MRR