* T H E H O N ' B L E S R I J U + W.P.No. 20357 of 2007 % 1 1 - 1 0 - 2 0 0 7 # B . C h e n n a R e d d y s / o C h a i r m a n , A g r i c u l t u r a l 1 6 - 1 1 - 7 4 0 / 1 / 1 / D , G a d d i . . P e t i t i o V s . $ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Agriculture & Cooperation (AGRL.MKTG.I) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner & Director of Agricultural Marketing, A.P.Hyderabad, 3. The Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, New Osmangunj, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary 4. Sri G. Balakrishna Yadav s/o not known to petitioner, Vice Chairman & Incharge Chariman, Agrl. Market Committee, New Osman Gunj, Hyderabad 5. Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seeds Merchants Association, office of 16-10-1/164, First Floor, Sri Krupa Agrl. Market Complex, Malakpet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary. .RESPONDENTS. < G I S T : > H E A D N O T E : ! C o u n s e l f o r p e t i t i o n e Sri K.R. Prabhakar, ^ C o u n s e l f o r r e s p o n d e C o u n s e l f o r R e s p o n d e n S r i V . V . N a r C o u n s e l f o r R e s p o n d e n S r i T . K u m a C o u n s e l f o r R e s p o n d e n ? C A S E S R E F E R R E D : - 1. (2002) 10 SCC 471 2. (2003) 6 SCC 675 3. AIR 2006 SC 2609 4. AIR 1981 AP 395 5. AIR 1977 SC 276 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P. NO. 20357 of 2007 DATED: 11-10-2007 Between:- B. Chenna Reddy. … PETITIONER And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Prl. Secretary, Agriculture & Cooperation (AGRIL.MKTG.I) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and 3 others. ..RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P. NO. 20357 of 2007 O R D E R The matter is coming up for admission. 2. When the matter came up for admission on 27-09-2007, in the light of the orders dated 07-08-2007 and 24-09-2007, since in both the orders the representation made by the Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seeds Merchants Association had been referred to and since the orders were made at the instance of the said Association, on the allegations made by the said Association, this Court was of the opinion that the said Association is a necessary party. The implead applications were filed and respondents 4 and 5 were impleaded. 3. When the matter came up on 01-10-2007, Sri T. Kumar Babu, learned counsel representing the 4th respondent and Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel representing the 5th respondent requested time on the ground that they are entering appearance on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 respectively and hence this Court directed the matter to appear in the list on 04-10- 2007. The matter was heard on 04-10-2007. 4. Sri S. Ramchander Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing the writ-petitioner, had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ-petition and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent and would maintain that though normally in a matter relating to suspension pending enquiry, the Courts may be reluctant to interfere, this is a peculiar case, where on the self-same allegations made against the Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, an order was made by the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Lr. No. 5395/2006, dated 07-08-2007 and the Government having referred to the said order dated 07-08- 2007 as second reference made G.O.Rt. No. 1241, dated 24-09- 2007 repeating the same allegations keeping the writ-petitioner under suspension for a period of three months with immediate effect under Section 6(A) of A.P. (Andhra Pradesh Produce & Livestock) Market Act, 1966, (in short ‘the Act’) pending further enquiry into the matter and in this view of the matter, such power could not have been exercised by the Government for the reason that no further enquiry could be proceeded with, in the light of the order already made by the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, A.P. Hyderabad dated 07-08-2007. Learned Senior Counsel also would contend that even on a careful reading of Section 6(A) of the Act, this is not a case where the Government could have made such an order since none of the ingredients expected to be satisfied, to attract Section 6(A) of the Act, had been satisfied in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel also would contend that the suspension pending enquiry, at the best, could be made only when the incumbent had willfully omitted or refused to carry out their orders or abuse his position or powers vested with him and his further continuance in the office would be detrimental to the interests of the Market Committee. Learned Senior Counsel also would contend that the enquiry conducted by the Joint Director of Marketing would reveal mala fide intention and illegal activities of the Association, hence, it is definitely an arbitrary action. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the references made in these orders and also the contents of these orders. Learned Senior Counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA V. K.D. PANDEY AND ANOTHER[1]. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture representing respondents 1 and 2 had taken this Court through the Section 6(A) of the Act and in all fairness would submit that, no doubt, the order made by the 2nd respondent dated 07-08-2007 referred to the self- same allegations. But the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, however, would contend that, it appears from the records that such observations were made by the 2nd respondent in the light of Lr.Rc. No. 1819/2006, dated 02-07-2007 of the Joint Director of Marketing, Hyderabad (evidently the date appears to be a mistake). Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture also had pointed to the concluding portion of the order dated 07- 08-2007 wherein it was specified that, in view of the above, the Government may take a view and issue further necessary orders in this matter. Hence, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture would maintain that it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent closed the enquiry finally and in the light of the same, the contention advanced by the counsel for the writ-petitioner that G.O.Rt. No. 1214, dated 24-09-2007, is without authority, cannot be sustained. Even if the allegations are self-same allegations, the Government is empowered to take its own decision in this regard in the light of Section 6(A) of the Act aforesaid. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture also would maintain that this being a suspension pending enquiry, at the best, the enquiry may be expedited and nothing beyond thereto can be done at this stage. 6. Sri V.V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent, also made submissions on similar lines as that of the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture. 7. Sri T. Kumar Babu, learned counsel representing the 4th respondent, would maintain that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, since neither the fundamental right nor the legal right of the writ-petitioner had been infringed. Learned counsel also had taken this Court through the language of Section 6(A) of the Act and made elaborate submissions on the expression “opinion”. Learned counsel would maintain that in forming an opinion there need not be any enquiry. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would submit that in the light of the subsequent events, since the allegations made by the Association may have to be gone into, at this stage, no interference is warranted. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would contend that this being a case falling under the realm of administration, in the light of the limitations imposed by several judicial precedents in the exercise of judicial review on this Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions and also certain dictionary meanings to substantiate his submissions. 8. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel representing the 5th respondent, would maintain that though the relief in the writ petition is in the form of a direction, virtually, it is a writ of Certiorari to quash the order. Learned counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and had referred to the relevant paras. Learned counsel also would submit that the power of the Director of Marketing being concurrent even as per the language of Section 6(A) of the Act, it cannot be said that the Government has no power at all to make an order of suspension pending enquiry especially in the light of the language of Section 6(A) of the Act. At the best, the report of the Director of Agricultural Marketing, dated 07-08-2007 is an interim report, it cannot be said that the enquiry into the allegations had been finally closed or put an end to even in the light of the language of the said order, especially, the concluding portion. Learned Counsel would also maintain that the power to be exercised under Section 6(A) of the Act of the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent being concurrent, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the language of Section 6(A) of the Act, the Joint Director is not competent and the Joint Director has no role to play and there is no delegation of power to the Joint Director. Learned counsel also would maintain that, it appears in the light of the report of the Joint Director without proper application of mind, the 2nd respondent made an order, by that itself, it cannot be contended that the 1st respondent is denude of all the powers under Section 6(A) of the Act. Learned counsel placed strong reliance on SURYA DEV RAI V. RAM CHANDER RAI AND OTHERS[2]. Learned counsel while further elaborating his submissions had taken this Court through the impugned order G.O. Rt. No. 1241 dated 24-09-2007 and further pointed out specifically to the references made in the order made by the 2nd respondent, Joint Press release dated 23-07-2007, representation of the Chairman, AMC, Hyderabad to the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, dated 23-07-2007, representation of Chairman, AMC, Hyderabad to the Minister for marketing dated 24-07-2007 and also Lr. Rc.No. 1819/2006 dated 02-07-2007 of Joint Director of Marketing, Hyderabad. Learned counsel, in all fairness, would submit that the date 02-07-2007 may be a mistake. Learned counsel also would maintain that as can be seen from the nature of the representations, it is unknown why such representations were made by the Chairman and incidentally no doubt the Joint Press release of A.P. Grain and Seeds Merchants Association, Hyderabad had been referred to. Hence, the learned counsel would maintain that the Government as superior authority always has the residuary power, it is not as though the said report was called for by the Government and at the instance of the Government the said report was submitted, even as well reflected from the references, hence to contend that the Government is not competent to make such an order is totally an unsustainable contention. 9. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, the impugned G.O.Rt. No. 1241 dated 24-09-2007, and the other material papers placed before this Court. 10. Sri B. Chenna Reddy, the writ-petitioner, had averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he is a farmer and engaged in cultivation and dairy farm and has been the Chairman of Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad and he was appointed by the 1st respondent as such for a period of three years in exercise of its powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 6, read with sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 60, dated 09-03-2006 and since then he has been continuing as Chairman of Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, till date. 11. It is also stated that he had been striving hard to develop the market yards under the control of the 3rd respondent Market Committee in all respects and take all steps to provide essential facilities in the interests of all the parties engaged in activities within the premises of market yards including hamalies, traders and clerks. It is also further averred that there are seven market yards under the control of the 3rd respondent situated at Gudimalkapur, Mir-alam-Mandi, Begum Bazar, Madannapet, Kishan Gunj, Chandrayanagutta and Malakpet, that all the ryots in and around Hyderabad, Nalgonda, Ranga Reddy and Medak Districts bring their agricultural produce and livestock to these market yards and sell them away for a competitive price, that he would take all steps as the Chairman of the 3rd respondent to see that the interests of the ryots, who are the bedrock of the economy of this country and take all steps to protect them from the clutches of middlemen, such as traders and commission agents, that under his chairmanship the 3rd respondent reached its targeted income i.e. Rs. 2,75,00,000/- for the year 2006-07 as against Rs. 1,45,00,000/- for the year 2005-06, that he had taken steps to shift the Jambagh flower business to Gudimalkapur market yard, that he prevented the illegal business conducted in the name of ‘Ganta’ by getting issued notices through officers concerned and he took steps to prevent the method of collecting money illegally on white slips (tella chittis) instead of thak patti and got refunded the money to the tune of several thousands to the ryots by taking action on concerned traders, that the traders and commission agents, who are demanding commissions illegally at 8% instead of 2 or 4% by getting licenses with benami names and evading payment of income-tax and sales tax ought to have been paid to the Government, were taken to task by regular inspections and got refunded the money collected excessively to the ryots and took steps as per the procedure stipulated in the Act and the rules made thereunder, that he directed the concerned officials of the 3rd respondent committee to take steps to enhance the income to the market committee and that he had also taken steps to construct houses to the hamalis in the premises of the respective market yards. 12. It is further stated by the petitioner that he made a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to protect the interests of market committee by enquiring into the issue of encroachment of the market committee’s land and to protect the interests of traders and ryots, that he made a representation to the respondents informing the steps taken by him to protect the interests of ryots enclosing the pamphlets issued educating the ryots in respect of the illegalities that were being committed by the commission agents and traders and that there is no allegation of misappropriation or misconduct against him in his tenure of 1 ½ year as the Chairman. Further, it is stated that all the steps taken in the interests of poor ryots and growers and to develop the 3rd respondent Market Committee and market yards under its control caused deep anguish in the minds of traders and commission agents as the above steps prevented them from demanding or collecting excessive commission and performing illegal activities at the cost of poor and destitute ryots and hence the traders, commission agents and their associations bore-grudge against him, that in furtherance of their vengeance against him, one Association known as Andhra Pradesh Grain & Seeds Merchants Association, Malakpet made a complaint to the 2nd respondent with certain allegations against him. 13. It is also averred by the petitioner that the A.P. Grain & Seeds Merchants Association operating in Malakpet, Hyderabad made the above complaint dated 23-07-2007 to the 2nd respondent with an ill-will and mala fide intention to get rid of him as the Chairman of the 3rd respondent since he is taking steps to protect the interests of the ryots and growers from the clutches of its members viz. traders, middlemen and commission agents and in pursuance of the said complaint, the Association conducted bandh on 25-07-2007 in the Malakpet Market yard. It is further averred that the above allegations are vague and baseless and invented only to get rid of him as Chairman of the Market Committee and it is also relevant to point out that out of the seven market yards, which are under the control of the 3rd respondent Market Committee, only the above said association operating in Malakpet Market Committee made the said complaint even though there are several associations are operating in all the seven market yards, that from this it is clear that the said complaint is based on no material and tainted with mala fides and ill-will and for oblique motives and extraneous considerations and that aggrieved by the ill-will and vilification campaign resorted to by the Association, he made a representation to the Minister Smt. Sabitha Indra Reddy informing all the events. 14. It is also further averred by the petitioner that in pursuance of the said complaint dated 23-07-2007, the Joint Director of Marketing, Hyderabad, conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted its report to the 2nd respondent on 28-07-2007 wherein it was reported that the allegations are vague and baseless and no mala fides cannot be attributed to the Chairman and it is also reported that there are oblique motives and extraneous considerations behind the said complaint and further reported to the 2nd respondent that the market committee had initiated steps to educate the farmers and purchasers about the mal-practices committed by the traders and commission agents through public address system and pamphlets and further reported that the Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee had taken steps to stop such mal practices of ‘Ganta’ and also taken steps to return the unauthorized collections made by the traders from ryots. Further, it is averred that on the basis of the said report dated 28-07-2007 the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 7-8-2007 to the 1st respondent referring the said report seeking necessary orders from the 1st respondent-Government and the 1st respondent having received the report dated 28-7-2007 and the letter of 2nd respondent passed the impugned order without considering the said reports and without having any material before it and hence the same is illegal, unjust, arbitrary etc. and that the impugned order is based on no material and a total non-speaking order and hence the impugned is liable to be set aside. 15. It is also further averred that the impugned order was passed in view of the powers under Section 6(A) of the Act and the relevant portion of the same reads as hereunder. “6-A. Power of Government or the Director of Marketing to suspend the Chairman of the Market Committee:- If the Government or the Director of Marketing are of the opinion that the Chairman of Market Committee willfully omitted or refused to carry out the orders of the Government or the Director of Marketing for the proper working of the Market Committee or abused his position or the powers vested with him and that the further continuance of such person in the office would be detrimental to the interests of market committee or the inhabitants of the market, the Government or the Director of Marketing may, by order, suspend the Chairman of the Market Committee from the office for a period not exceeding three months pending investigation into the charges and the action thereto under the foregoing provisions of this Section.” 16. It is also further averred that from the reading of the above said section, it is clear that the respondents can suspend the Chairman, if the incumbent is willfully omitted or refused to carry out their orders, or abused his position or the powers vested with him and that his further continuance in office would be detrimental to the interests of the Market Committee, that in the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that he omitted or refused to carry out their directions and it is also evident from the record that he, as the Chairman of the Committee acted responsibly with due diligence keeping in mind the interests of the Market Committee and inhabitants of the market, as such, there is no complaint whatsoever from any of the associations operating in the seven market yards which are under the control of the 3rd respondent except the present complaint from the association, which bore- grudge against him as stated above for preventing their illegal income viz. collecting excess commission and other source of illegal income at the cost of poor ryots and hence invoking the provisions under Section 6-A to suspend him is highly untenable and unwarranted and in fact the enquiry conducted by the Joint Director of Marketing reveals the mala fide intention and illegal activities of the Association. 17. It is also further averred by the petitioner that having received the complaint from the association, the Joint Director conducted a detailed enquiry in the presence of all the interested including himself and submitted its report to the 2nd respondent, who in turn informed the same to the 1st respondent, that the 1st respondent who has to pass necessary orders after considering all aspects with proper application of mind and considering the detailed report submitted by the Joint Director and the Commissioner, passed the impugned order suspending him without considering any of the relevant material and without issuing any reasons and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is further stated by the petitioner that the entire issue is based on a vague, frivolous, and vexatious complaint made by the association with ill-will and for oblique motive and extraneous considerations and the same was enquired into in detail by a responsible officer i.e. Joint Director of Marketing, Hyderabad, which was confirmed and informed by the 2nd respondent- Commissioner to the 1st respondent. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court praying for the reliefs referred to supra. 18. The counter affidavit of the 5th respondent alone had been filed. The President of the 5th respondent-association has sworn to the counter affidavit, wherein it is averred that the 5th respondent association is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, vide registration No. 771 of 1957 and the association is avowed to the protection of welfare of its members who are traders in the agricultural market committee, in so far as the market area of Srikrupa Market, Malakpet is concerned. This respondent stated that there are about 200 members in its association and they are not concerned with the other market yards which are under the control and supervision of Hyderabad Market Committee and their association is interested in safeguarding the interests of its members in so far as the Srikrupa Market which forms part of Hyderabad Market Committee is concerned. It is also stated that the impugned order in G.O.Rt. No. 1241 dated 24-09-2007 is only an order of suspension pending enquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner on account of his misconduct in the office of the Chairman of Hyderabad Market Committee, that their association had issued a press release dated 23-07-2007 elaborating