IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNES DAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos.559 & 561 of 2008 Writ Appeal No.559 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29-04-2008 in W.P.No.5978 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court) Between: 1 The Gram Panchayat, Sardarnagar, Ranga Reddy Dist., rep. by its Executive Officer. 2 The Gram Panchayat, Sardarnagar, Ranga Reddy Dist., rep. by its Sarpanch. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sahabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Agricultural Market Committee, Sardarnagar, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Assistant Secretary. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District 3 The Tahsildar, Sahabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS Writ Appeal No. 561 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29-04-2008 in W.P.No.6100 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Gram Panchayat, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Panchayat Secretary. 2 The Gram Panchayat, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Sarpanch. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Tahasildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Agricultural Market Committee, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Assistant Secretary. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District 3 The Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for Appellants: Mr. D. Prakash Reddy for Mr. G. ELISHA Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr. P. Venugopal for Mr. V.V. N. Narayana Rao Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3: G.P., Panchayat Raj and G.P., Revenue. The Court made the following: Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy) As the issue involved in these two appeals is similar, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These two writ appeals, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, are filed aggrieved by the order dated 29-04-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.V.M.P.No.1155 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.7943 of 2008 in W.P.No.6100 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No.7776 of 2008 in W.P.No.5978 of 2008 respectively. 3. The appellants are the Grampanchayats, Ibrahimpatnam and Sardarnagar in Ranga Reddy District, which are statutory bodies, constituted under provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (‘the Act’ for brevity). The aforementioned writ petitions were filed by respondents-Agricultural Market Committees, Sardarnagar and Ibrahimpatnam, challenging the auction notices dated 10-03-2008 and 15-03-2008 issued by the said Grampanchayats for sale of leasehold rights to conduct cattle markets in the respective areas of their Grampanchayats. Such notices were questioned by the market committees mainly on the ground that in view of the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 (‘the Market Act’ for brevity), they alone have power to conduct cattle markets. Initially, the said notices were stayed by the learned single Judge. When vacate petitions were filed by the appellants- Grampanchayats, earlier ad interim orders were made absolute by dismissing the vacate petitions. 4. We have heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-Grampanchayats, Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-market committees and also learned Government Pleaders for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Revenue. 5. In these appeals, it is argued by Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-Grampanchayats, that in view of the ad interim order passed by this court, the appellants have not auctioned the leasehold rights, but, however, they themselves were conducting cattle markets in their respective Grampanchayats. It is submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the learned single Judge while confirming the ad interim order, respondents-market committees are making an attempt to conduct such markets. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that previously respondents-market committees filed W.P.Nos.20494 and 20496 of 2006 seeking directions by way of Mandamus to handover the cattle markets to them, but no interim orders were passed therein and matters are posted along with other matters which are referred to the Full Bench, by a Division Bench of this court. It is stated that when the said lis is pending, based on the findings recorded by the learned single Judge, at this stage, respondents-market committees are trying to conduct the cattle markets. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-market committees that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Talcher Municipality V. Talcher Regulated Market Committee[1], and other judgments of the Division Bench of this court, it is only the market committees that have the right to conduct cattle markets and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 7. It is not in dispute that writ petitions filed by respondents-market committees are pending consideration in W.P.Nos.20494 and 20496 of 2006. In the said writ petitions, it appears that they sought directions against the appellants-Grampanchayats to handover cattle markets to them. But, however, no interim order was passed by this court and the writ petitions are still pending consideration. The present writ petitions are filed only when the appellants-Grampanchyats have issued auction notices for sale of leasehold rights and such auction notices were stayed by this court. The scope of the present writ petitions is with regard to the validity of the auction notices issued by the respondents. Though it is the case of the respondents-market committees that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to supra, only the market committees will have the right to conduct cattle markets, but, however, the same is a matter which has to be considered at the stage of final disposal of the said writ petitions. With reference to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the respondents-market committees, it is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellants that in the said judgment there was no consideration with regard to the right of the local body, namely, the Grampanchayat and therefore the said judgment cannot be applied herein, at this stage. 8. Be that as it may, it is to be noticed that writ petitions filed by the respondents-market committees seeking directions to handover cattle markets are pending consideration. By virtue of the findings recorded by the learned single Judge to the effect that market committees alone have right to auction the leasehold rights, respondents-market committees cannot be allowed to start cattle markets at this stage. It is the case of the appellants-Gram Panchayats that from the last several decades they have been conducting cattle markets and the main issue is pending consideration before the Full Bench of this court. 9. When the matters were heard on 17-06-2008, conduct of cattle markets by the appellants-Grampanchayats was disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-market committees. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the official respondents was therefore asked to obtain instructions from the official respondents and report as to, who in fact is conducting cattle markets presently. When the matters were further heard on 19-06- 2008, it was submitted, on instructions, by the learned Government Pleader that Grampanchayats alone were conducting cattle markets till the impugned orders were passed, but thereafter respondents-market committees have started conducting cattle markets with the assistance of the Police. From the said submission, it is clear that the Grampanchayats alone were conducting cattle markets and the same is also evident from the relief sought for in the writ petitions filed by the respondents-market committees in the year 2006. Though we do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge to the extent of confirming the ad interim order passed with regard to sale of leasehold rights by way of auction, but at the same time, we are of the considered opinion that as the main writ petitions are still pending consideration, at this stage, respondents-market committees cannot be allowed to conduct the cattle markets, based on the findings recorded by the learned single Judge. 10. For the foregoing reasons, while confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge, we direct that the respondents-market committees shall not conduct cattle markets and we further allow the appellants-Grampanchayats to conduct cattle markets in their respective areas till final adjudication of the issue, in the pending writ petitions. 11. The writ appeals are accordingly disposed of and the order of the learned single Judge stands modified as above. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to expedite the hearing of the writ petitions. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July 9, 2008 MRR [1] (2004) 6 SCC 178