IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No. 1 0 3 OF 2010 Between: E. Nagaveni w/o Gangadhar Rao, Aged about 45 years, 0ccupation: Agriculture, R/o Ankalagudem village, Koyyalagudem Mandal, West Godavari district. …. Appellant V/s. The Secretary, Tobacco Board, Guntur, Guntur District & 3-Ors. …. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri B. Chandrasekhar, Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S. Srinivas Reddy THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No. 1 0 3 OF 2010 J U D G M E N T: (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari, The Acting Chief Justice) The writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 21- 12-2009 passed in WP.No. 27324 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge directed the respondents to permit the writ petitioner to sell the tobacco grown by him in accordance with the directions of the Central Government for the present crop year. 2. The main writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus, questioning the impugned proceedings dated 17-09-2009 passed by the second respondent, which was confirmed by the first respondent in F.No.1(8)C/2009-10/PDN/5263, dated 26- 10-2009 in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of Tobacco Barren Licence, as discriminatory, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Tobacco Board Rules, 1976 and consequently to direct the respondents to treat him as authorised grower and barn holder for the crop year 2009-2010 and to grant such other suitable order as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a small farmer having small extent of agricultural dry land in an extent of Ac:5-00 and the same is feasible for growing tobacco only. Therefore, he is cultivating tobacco in the fields since a long time and eking out his livelihood. During the month of September 2007, the second respondent published a notice in the notice board of Auction Platform at Koyallagudem stating that the farmers, who purchased two tobacco barns, which were registered with the auction Superintendent of Bharachalam Auction Platform and upon surrendering the said registrations of those barns to the second respondent would be granted one tobacco barn license of Koyallagudem auction platform. Further the second respondent also furnished the licences of tobacco barns of Bhadrachalam Auction Platform. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner among the other farmers had purchased two barn licences from the respective owners i.e., one Sri D.Venakteswarlu of Sitarampuram village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam district bearing Tobacco Board Growers Registration No.9-052-027 for a sale consideration of Rs.32,000/- and another from Sri Ch. Uma Maheswara Rao of Sitarampuram village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam district bearing Tobacco Board Growers Registration No.9-052-131 for a sale consideration of Rs.32,000/-. On 30-11- 2007, the petitioner made an application in Form No.1 to the second respondent by enclosing all the relevant documents including covering letter NOC by the vendors and by the Bank officials and as well as the sale agreements. It is stated that similarly situated farmers had also applied for grant of tobacco barn licences and the second respondent granted tobacco barn licences to some of the farmers for the crop year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 and their tobacco crop had been treated as authorized tobacco and permitted them to sell at the second respondent auction platform. In case of the petitioner, the second respondent permitted him to harvest the crop for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 and treated the said crop as unauthorized crop and imposed penalty of 5% on the sale proceeds. Aggrieved by the said inaction of the second respondent, he filed WP.No.13839 of 2009 before this court. It is stated that this court issued notice before admission and directed the respondents to file its counter. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents filed counter stating that the application made by him for grant of licence was rejected through proceedings TB/Regn./2008-09 dated 19-9-2008 under the provisions of Tobacco Board Act. Further the respondents averred in the counter that they communicated the rejection order to him. Respondents further averred in the counter that as per the provisions of the Act and Rules, grant of registration or renewal is only for a period of one year basing on the production policy, registration/renewal would be granted, but in fact no such proceedings of rejection were served to him nor any proof of service has been produced before this court. During the course of hearing, it was submitted that if he made an application for the crop year 2009- 2010 then the application would be considered, basing on the said submission this court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by order dated 27-7-2009 granting liberty to make fresh application for grant of licence for crop season 2009-2010 and if such application was made, the respondent was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. It is further stated that when the petitioner submitted application for the crop year 2009-2010 seeking grant of barn licence along with the order of this court and along with all the required documents and requisite fee, the respondents to his utter shock and dismay passed an order rejecting the said application in a stereo type format of non-speaking order without application of mind. Further the reasons stated in the impugned order dated 17-9-2009 for rejection of barn licence is that the petitioner had unauthorisedly constructed tobacco barn in the year 2007, secondly as per the production policy for the crop year 2009-2010, his application is hereby rejected, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice, without affording an opportunity of being heard and also contrary to the Tobacco Board Rules, 1976. Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, he preferred a revision along with the stay application on 05-10-2009 before the third respondent through the second respondent under Rule 33-A (9) and Rule 34-0 (8) of the Tobacco Board Rules, 1976 by his counsel. 5. While things stood thus, the respondents without putting his counsel on notice or the petitioner, without affording an opportunity of putting forth his case, the first respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 26-10-2009 in F.No.1(8)C/2009-10/PDN/5263 confirming the order of the second respondent and rejected the revision petition on untenable grounds. Questioning the same, he filed the writ petition. 6. On hearing both sides and on appreciation of facts and circumstances, the learned single Judge directed the respondents to permit the writ petitioner to sell the tobacco grown by him in accordance with the directions of the Central Government for the present crop year. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondents granted licence for a godown, which was constructed after two barns, constructed in the other areas, by purchasing barns from Bhadrachalam area from the growers, who were not registered within the stipulated span of time. The effort of the petitioner is to secure permission enabling him to sell the tobacco grown by him. Further the respondents are duty bound to publish the production policy for the crop year 2009-2010 under the Tobacco Board Rules, 1976 and have to be circulated to the farmers in the form of Booklets so that the farmers would be knowing about the production policy formulated by the Government of India. Moreover, the respondents cannot view the case of the appellant in a routine manner i.e., fresh application to be made for grant of licence for the crop year 2009-2010 for the reason that the respondents themselves had furnished a list of barn licences of Bhadrachalam Board in the year 2007 stating that if the two barn licences of Bhadrachalam Board would be replaced with the one sale permit barn of Koyyalalgudem Board, basing on the said notice the appellant had purchased two black soil barns of Bhadrachalam Board and submitted application in the year 2007 itself but for the reasons best known the said applications were not at all considered nor passed any order only to avoid positive orders in WP.No.13839 of 2009, the respondents have stated that the crop gears 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 had already been completed and the case of the appellant would be considered for the crop year 2009-2010. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that while considering the application the respondents should follow the procedure as contemplated under Rule 33-A of the Tobacco Board Rules, 1976 wherein the Board has to constitute a committee of five members to lay down certain criteria for registration or renewal of registration as grower of Virginia tobacco and while laying down the criteria the committee shall have regard to the sub-clause (a) to (g) of sub-rule 3 of Rule-33-A. Rule 34-N and 34-O of the Tobacco Board Rules, 1976 the procedure and principles have been lay down, wherein the Board shall constitute a committee of five members to lay down criteria for grant of licences for the operation of barrens, the said committee while laying down the criteria, the committee shall have regard to sub-clause (a) to (g). 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the possession of a barn, by a grower, is insisted, as a condition precedent for registration with the Board. The cultivation of tobacco is controlled and regulated by the Tobacco Board, Guntur. Bhadrachalam area is also under cultivation of tobacco but from the year 2007-08 onwards, the cultivation was stopped. Further the appellant purchased barn from the dealers in the Bhadrachalam region and claimed to have erected one barn in his native area and submitted application to the second respondent for barn licence. But the growers from whom the appellant purchased the barn was not registered, even for one year, in the span of three years, before 2007. The possession of a barn, either as owner, or as lessee, is a condition precedent for grant of licence to an individual to grow tobacco. The barns, in turn, must be licensed. In the absence of such licence, it would not be recognized. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 12. After hearing both sides, it appears that the respondents specifically stated that the facility as pleaded would be available only if the owners of the barns in Bhadrachalam area, who are registered as growers, at least, in one year, in the span of three years, before 2007 and the respondents have categorically stated that the persons from whom the appellant purchased barns were not registered as growers within the said period and the appellant did not place any material to the contract. Moreover, the names of the growers from whom the barns were purchased are mentioned and it is clearly stated that all of them were registered as growers, at one point of time, or the other, between the years 2003 and 2007. Thus, the learned single Judge has rightly observed that even the said ground is also not available to the appellant. The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant and permit him to sell the tobacco grown by him in accordance with the directions that may be given by the Central Government for the present crop year. Viewed from any angle, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order, as the impugned order does not call for any interference. 13. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ________________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 18-02-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No. 1 0 3 OF 2010 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. 7 0 Date: 18-02-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L