HYDERABAD AND SECUNDERABAD COCONUT MERCHANTS ASSN Vs. DIRECTOR OF MARKETING
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-22
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 19,1992

HYDERABAD AND SECUNDERABAD COCONUT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.PADMA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF MARKETING, GOVERNMENT OF A.P., HYDERABAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KAUSALYA DEVI BOGRA VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
ISAACS VS. ROBERTSON [REFERRED TO]
VIGILANCE VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF A NDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RAVULU SABBA RAO VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND GARG VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER U P [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI SHANKER SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
DADAJI ALIAS DINA VS. SUKHDEOBABU [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA SINGH VS. MATHURA AHIR [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER SINGH VS. SURJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
M K SALPEKAR VS. SUNIL KUMAR SHAMSUNDER CHAUDHARI [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. GURNAM KAUR [REFERRED TO]
GOODYEAR INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA:GEDORE TOOLS P LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SURINDERKUMAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.Reddeppa Reddy, J. - (1.)The delica te issue for our decision is whether the present two writ petitions, viz.,(1)W.P.No.l6814/1990 for directing there spondentsl,2and5 to allot plots to petitioners 2 to 12 in the market yard established under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, in the premises called "Mahaboob Mansion", Malakpet, Hyderabad, by way of implementing the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.6783/1981, dated 22-4-1991 and by reducing the area of plots in the approved plan, so as to meet the needs of all wholesale traders of Hyderabad city in agricultural produce; and (2) W.P.No.14261/1991 for declaring the Government Memo No.1240/ Agrl.VI(1)/80-1, dated 2-5-1980 and the Government Memo No.1327/ Agrl. VI(1)/80-1, dated 23-5-1980 as illegal and for directing the respondents to cancel the allotment of plots measuring mote than 200 square yards etc., are maintainable in the light of -(i) the order dated 19-4-1990 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.1319 and 1320 of 1983, whereunder the approved plan relating to the said market yard was upheld subject to certain specified modifications and (ii) the Division Bench decision of this Court in Public Vigilance vs. The Government of A ndhra Pradesh, and if so, whether the petitioners 2 to 12 in the first writ petition and the sole petitioner in the second writ petition are entitled to allotment of plots in the said market yard? Sri U.N. Bachawat, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has endeavoured to persuade us to consider the matter afresh since some of the legal propositions he seeks to raise now have not been raised in the case reported in Public Vigilance vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh.
(2.)The points raised in both the writ petitions are interlinked. Therefore, we propose to dispose them of by a common order.
(3.)Though the facts of case are given in extenso in the case referred to supra (1), for the sake of convenience, we propose to state them, in brief, here also. They are as follows:-
;


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