IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13595 of 2009 Between: M/s. Ramakrishna Cashews rep. by its Proprietor Chidella Sireesha, W/o. Srinivasa Rao,7-199, Oruganti Street, Vetapalem, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Director, Marketing Agricultural Department, Hyderabad. 2 Agricultural Market Committee, Chirala, Prakasam District rep. by its Special Grade Secretary. 3 Agricultural Market Committee, Yalamanchili Visakhapatnam District rep. by its Special Grade Secretary. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents: MR K.MADHAVA REDDY SC FOR AGRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTEE The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore just and essential that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in levying and collecting the market fee on the cashews purchased by the petitioner industries outside the notified areas of respondents 2 and 3 herein as arbitrary, illegal and capricious and violative of the provisions of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to levy and collect the market fee on the cashews at check post contrary to the provisions of the Act 16 of 1966.” At the hearing, Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by order dated 19-06-2009 in W.P.No.10979 of 2009, wherein this Court, inter alia, held as under “If the petitioner claims that the cashew nuts are being purchased by it from outside the notified market area and that no sale or purchase transactions are taking place within the notified market area of respondents 2 and 3, it is not liable for levy of such market fees. Therefore, as and when the respondents make a demand of such market fee, the petitioner is entitled to produce proof of purchase of the cashew nuts outside the market area to show that no sale or purchase transactions have taken place within the market areas of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Subject to showing such proof, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not levy any market fee on such transactions.” Since the present writ petition is identical to the one, which was disposed of in the above mentioned order, the same is disposed of in terms of the order referred to above with the direction that the said order shall be read as part of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th July, 2009 vrn