The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.10939 of 2009 Dated 7th July, 2010 Between: Thadi Setti Prakash …Petitioner And The Commissioner and Director of Marketing Committee, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Agriculture Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri VVN.Narayana Rao, SC for AMC Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notification, dated 26-02-2009, issued by respondent No.1 and the consequential notices, dated 23-04-2009, issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner is President of the Grains and Seeds Merchants Association, Shadnagar. The members of the said association carry on business of commission agents in respondent No.2- Market Committee. According to the petitioner’s averment, the weighmen charges for stocks purchased by the commission agents are paid by the sellers of the stocks as per byelaw No.35 of the byelaws of respondent No.2 and that suddenly respondent No.3 issued notices on 23-04-2009 to the petitioner-association for payment of weighmen charges by the purchasers. The petitioner questioned this levy as contrary to judgment, dated 18- 10-2006, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1030 of 2006. This Court ordered notices to the respondents on 05-06-2009. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Sri VVN.Narayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions submitted that the premise, on which the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition, viz., that demand of weighmen charges in pursuance of the amended byelaws without following the procedure contemplated under Section 34 of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) is illegal, is erroneous because in the instant case after passing necessary resolution in this regard, the Chairman of respondent No.2- Market Committee addressed letter, dated 25-06- 2008, to the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, through the Joint Director of Marketing, Hyderabad, wherein proposals were sent for amendment of byelaw No.35 for enhancement of hamali charges, weighmen charges and sweeping charges and to collect weighmen charges from the purchasers. The said proposals forwarded by the Joint Director of Marketing were accepted by the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing and byelaw No.35 of the byelaws of respondent No.2 was amended and the same was published in the A.P.Gazette, dated 26th February, 2009. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Division Bench judgment, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, has no application to the present case. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and I find force in these submissions. In the Division Bench Judgment in WA.No.10306 of 2006, to which I am a party, the amendment of byelaw of the Market Committee concerned was declared as illegal and unenforceable, as the Market Committee concerned has failed to pass a resolution as required under Section 34 of the Act and that in the absence of such a resolution, the Commissioner and Director of Marketing has unilaterally amended the byelaw. As rightly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, in the instant case, the facts noted above would reveal that the proposal for amendment of the byelaw has emanated from respondent No.2 through a resolution and accordingly, respondent No.1 has accepted the said proposal by amending the byelaw. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14066 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th July, 2010 lur