IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 8115 of 2001 Between: M/s Surya Lakshmi Ginning Mills, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory G.Siva Ram Prasad, S/o. Parandhamaiah, Office at Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Director of Marketing, Vijayawada. 2 The Secretary, The Agricultural Market Committee, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st Respondnet in ROC No. 47/JDM/2001 dt. 26-2- 2001 as arbitrary, illegal, ultravirus, violative of petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and declare the action of the respondents in levying market fee on the Petition for the Cotton purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh as arbitrary, illegal and ultra virus in the interest of the Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S C.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 8115 of 2001 O R D E R: The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of cotton and having its office at Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh. For the purpose of its business, the petitioner purchases cotton, which is a notified produce, within the State of Andhra Pradesh and also outside the State. During the year 1997-98, the petitioner purchased cotton valued at Rs.84,75,439/- from G.P.Industries Limited, Akola, Maharastra State and the same was sent to Krishnaganga Spinning Mills, Thimmapur, which is within the purview of Chilakaluripeta Agricultural Market Committee. It is claimed that the entire transaction took place at Akola, Maharastra, and there was no activity of purchase or sale of cotton within Chilakaluripeta Market Committee. Thus, according to the petitioner, it is not liable to pay any market fees for the year 1997-98 on the quantity of cotton purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the petitioner filed its annual return claiming exemption of market fees on the cotton purchased at Maharastra. However, the said exemption was not allowed by the second respondent-Agricultural Market Committee, Chilakaluripeta and vide assessment order dated 11.01.2001, the petitioner was assessed to pay market fees on the said purchase also, on the ground that the petitioner sold the said stock within the notified area of the Agricultural Market Committee, Chilakaluripeta. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent-Joint Director of Marketing, under Section 12-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Agircultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’). The first respondent, by order, dated 26.02.2001, rejected the said appeal on the ground that before preferring an appeal under Section 12-E (2) of the Act, market fees shall be paid in accordance with the assessment made. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 26.02.2001, is arbitrary and illegal and further to declare the action of the respondents in levying market fees on the petitioner for the cotton purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd[1], vehemently contended that the petitioner cannot be required to pay the market fees on the cotton purchased by it outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. The learned counsel also placed before this Court, the order of this Court in W.P.No.34751 of 1997, dated 22.03.2007, wherein it was held that the Agricultural Market Committee shall not be entitled to levy market fees on the cotton purchased by the petitioner therein from the places outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in the above decisions that the Market Committees in the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot levy market fees on the transactions, which took place outside the State. It was also held by a Division Bench of this Court that even if the purchaser is from the State of Andhra Pradesh, market fees cannot be levied on the transactions, if they took place outside the State. In the present case, the petitioner though purchased the cotton stock in the State of Maharastra, the same was not utilized by it and admittedly, the said stock was sent to Krishnaganga Spinning Mills at Thimmapuram, which is under the purview of the second respondent- Agricultural Market Committee. It is true that the petitioner claimed that it was only a Commission Agent/Mediator in the said transaction and there was no activity of loading or unloading or purchase or sale within the notified area. Accordingly, it claimed exemption. However, the said claim was disallowed by the assessing authority. Whether the said assessment order was in accordance with law and sustainable is a question to be decided in the appeal under Section 12-E of the Act. Though the petitioner preferred such an appeal, it failed to satisfy the condition precedent of payment of the market fees as provided under Section 12-E (2) of the Act. Since admittedly, the petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirement, the rejection of appeal by the first respondent cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. The first respondent had rightly rejected the petitioner’s appeal and the interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not at all warranted. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the assessment order made by the second respondent being ex facie illegal and contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court i n Agricultural Market Committee’s case cited supra, notwithstanding the alternative remedy of appeal, the petitioner can maintain this writ petition. It is to be noted that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal without satisfying the statutory requirement. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner that the transactions of purchase by the petitioner and further sale to Krishnaganga Spinning Mills took place at Maharastra, outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, is a disputed question of fact, which requires consideration on appreciation of the evidence that may be produced by the petitioner. No finding as such can be recorded by this Court on such a contentious issue merely on the basis of the ratio laid down in the Agricultural Market Committee’s case referred supra. Hence, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________ G.ROHINI,J 18th February, 2009 KH [1] AIR 1997 SC 2502