THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22633 of 2001 DATED 10-09-2009 Between: M/s T.Nagarajaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Nizamabad & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, a licencee under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh ( Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), questions the validity of the order, dated 04-10-2001, issued by the 2nd respondent-Kamareddy Agricultural Market Committee in proceedings No.Lic/19/96-97/780 demanding an amount of Rs.52,776/- towards licence fee and market fee for the years, 1996-97 and 1997-98. 2. Even according to the petitioner, it is not in dispute that he is dealing in notified products having business premises at Bibipet, Domakonda mandal, of erstwhile Kamareddy Taluq in Nizamabad District. The only plea of the petitioner is that he is not liable to pay market fee and licence fee under the provisions of the Act as he is not doing business in the market notified area of the 2nd respondent- Kamareddy Agricultural Market Committee. 3. In support of his plea, the petitioner relied on the notification issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1064, dated 30-07-1971. Based on the said notification, it is the case of the petitioner that since the village of Bibipet is not in the radius of 12 kilometers from the office of the 2nd respondent he is not liable to pay the market fee and licence fee. He further relied on a certificate issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayatraj, Kamareddy in which the said authority had certified that the radial distance between Kamareddy and Bibipet village is 23.75 kilometers. 4. Counter-affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent. While generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, precisely, it is the case of the respondent that since Bibipet is in the notified area of the 2nd respondent-Kamareddy Agricultural Market Committee, Kamareddy and as the petitioner is doing business in the notified products, he is liable to pay the licence fee and market fee as per the provisions of the Act. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned standing counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committee and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. As per Section 3 of the Act, the Government is empowered to declare an area as a notified area for the purpose of enactment in respect of the agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock, as specified in the said notification. Section 4 of the Act empowers the Government to notify the market areas. 7. It is also not disputed that if any trader carries business in the notified area he has to take licence as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act and he is also liable to pay the market fee as per the provisions of the Act. The G.O. relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a notification issued under Section 4(4) of the Act declaring the market area but not the notified area. So far as the notified area is concerned, the same is notified by way of notification under Section 3(3) of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No.2095, F & A (Agri-IV) dated 29-10-1968, including all the villages of Kamareddy Taluq in Nizamabad District in the notified area of Agricultural Market Committee of Kamareddy. 8. In that view of the matter, merely because the place of business of the petitioner does not fall under the notified market area under Section 4(4) of the Act, it is not open for the petitioner to say that he is not liable to pay market fee and licence fee. For the purpose of licence fee and market fee the notification issued under Section 3(3) of the Act is relevant. When the petitioner is doing business in the notified products within the notified area as per the notification issued under Section 3(3) of the Act, he is liable to pay the market fee and licence fee as per the provisions of the Act. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2nd respondent is entitled to the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner for the same amount covered in the order impugned. 10. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY ,J 10th September, 2009. Tsy