IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 19931 of 2009 Between: M/s.Meer Ahmed Ali S.Shah Fruit Traders. . .Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Agricultural and Co- operation and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.19931 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not renewing the Fruit Commission Agent Licence in favour of the petitioner to carry on business in Agricultural Market Yard at Gaddiannaram as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Act.No.16 of 1966 and consequently direct the respondents to renew the Fruit Commission Agent Licence in favour of the petitioner. 2) The grievance of the petitioner is that it is carrying on business as Fruit Commission Agent in Gaddiannaram for the last several years. The petitioner submitted an application to the 3rd respondent on 05.06.1997 to renew the Fruit Commission Agent licence for the year 1993-94, but the 3rd respondent did not renew the same. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4) When this matter is taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the petitioner submitted another representation dated 15.09.2009 to the 3rd respondent herein requesting to renew its licence. But, the 3rd respondent did not take any action. Further, the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) prescribes the procedure for grant and renewal of commission agent licences. The 3rd respondent is the Licensing Authority for the area of its operation. If the petitioner has fulfilled the qualifications and requirements for renewal of commission agent licence, the 3rd respondent cannot withhold the same. On the other hand, if the application submitted by the petitioner suffers from any defects, or if there exists any reasons, which disable the petitioner from being renew the licence, the 3rd respondent is under obligation to communicate such reasons or grounds. He cannot keep the application pending indefinitely. 5) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the application dated 15.09.2009 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with Section 7(2) of the Act, and take necessary steps within four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J October 06, 2009 KSH