M KALVA SURYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1972-7-14
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 06,1972

M.KALVA SURYANARAYANA REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER KALVA SURYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) (Delivered by the Chief Justice) The short but important question which has necessa ily to be answered in this enquiry is whether market charges can be imposed by the market Committee.
(2.) The essential facts are that the petitioners are merchants carrying on trade in foodgrains seeds and other agricultural products, They do this business on commisson basis. Apart from charging commission on their transactions, the petitioners charge also godown charges as well as insurance charges actually incurred Bye-law 12 of 1954 Bye-laws permit commission to be charged at the rate of Rs. 2-25 paise per 100. In view of the various changes occurring in the economic conditions, the petitioners and other merchants requested the Market committee to increase the rate of commrssion The market Committee met at a meeting on 28-11-1969, They resolved to increase the rate of commission from 21\4 % to 3%. They also approved the amendment to Bye-law 12(3).
(3.) The resolution together with the proposed amendment to the Bye-law was then sent to the Director of Marketing for approval. He approved the same on 15-1-70 The Government in exercise of its powers under section 27 of the Aadhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (Act 16 of 1966), herein after called the Act, set aside the order of the Oirector of Marketing approving the Resolution of the Market Committee and amendment of the Bye-law The Government held that it is within the exclusive competence of the Government to impose market charges and that neither the Market Committee nor the Director is the Authority to impose such charges This order was passed on 16-2-70 It is to question the validity of this order that the present writ petition is filed. The petitioners have asked for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with the right of petitioners to carry on their business in accordance with the amended bye-laws 12(3).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.