For the Appearing Petitioners L. Sanghi, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, D. Sudhakara Rao, Mrs Urmila sirur, T. V. S. N. Chari, B. Kanta Rao, G. R. Subbarayan, B. Kanta Rao, A. M. Singhvi, B. Parthasarthi, C. Seetharamiah, A. Subba Rao, Upendra Gupta, A. V. Rangam, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, N. Bhatakatsalam, Mrs. C. K. Sucharita, M. Khanna, G. Narayana Rao, M. Veerappa, Raju Ramachandra, G. S. Narayana Rao, and M. M. S. Srivastava.
For the Appearing Appellants.
P. Rao and B. Parthasarthi with him in CA.
1485, 2108, 2469/72,1073 and 4013 of 1982.
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, Mrs. Indra Sawhney and Miss Kittu Bansilal, with her for the Appellants in CA.
95 lakhs and odd was spent on setting up a gober gas plant.
2727, 2840 42, 2765, 2868, 2869, 2911, 3137, 3138, 3568 71, 3680, 7485 7580,3817 20,4190,9018 62,4553,4554 55, 4690,4773, 6617 6663,4774,6665 71,4775,6672 81, 4919, 4929,7588 7606, 8824, 7039 96,7129,8285 8311,8506 8653, 8654 8854, 7946 65, 9485 of 1981,2642 84, 3584, 4114 22,4409, 5485 5509 of 1982,4246 72 of 1973,5519 34,5665 85, 6983,7000,7252 60,7478 7637, 7925 42, 8386,9372 90, 9291 9440, 9605, 9804 9921, 9922 26, 9958 78, 9979 9994 of 1982, 199 318, 834 50,2862 2893,3644 48, 3660 3665,2901 2983 of 1983, 1286 and 1924,1925 49 of 1973,9383 9407, 8009 8036 of 1981,1650 82,1683 1704, 1763 88, 1789 1917, 1964 2113, 2287 91, 2461 78, 2846 49, 3107 27, 3128 48,3637 55, 3707,4652 4788, 4790 4919, 7093 7121, 8088 of 82,1174 80,4435 4565,4838 4909,4825 5074 of 1983.
2502/81.
For the Appearing Respondents.
Ram Reddy and G. N. Rao with him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN,J. These Petitions Under Art.
It observed from the statement showing the details of income and expenditure for three years 1977 78, 1978 79 and 1979 80 that there was a closing balance of about Rs.
32 of the Constitution principally lay a challenge to the companystitutional validity of the increase in the rate of market fee levied by the market companymittees in the state of Andhra Pradesh under Sub s. 1 of s. 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 Act for short from 50 paisa to rupee one on every one hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which the numberified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are purchased or sold in their respective numberified market areas on the ground that there was numberquid pro quo i.e. there was numbercorrelation between the increase in the rate of market fee and the service rendered.
It appears from the statement of income and expenditure for the years 1978 79, 1979 80 and 1980 81 that the income from the market fee even after its increase from 50 paisa to rupee one is number sufficient to meet the expenditure of the Market Committee.
There are also certain subsidiary questions raised in these petitions viz.
As to 1 The companystitutional validity of sub s. 6 of s. 7 of the Act which prohibits the carrying on of any transaction of purchase or sale of numberified agricultural produce, livestock or pro ducts of livestock in a numberified market area or outside the market in that area as violative of Art.
19 1 g of the Constitution.
One per hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which such agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is purchased or sold outside their markets but within their respective numberified market areas.
The Director of Marketing accordingly addressed a letter dated February 16, 1976 to all the agricultural market companymittees in the State inviting their attention to the resolution of the Advisory Board and requesting them to place the proposal for the enhancement of the existing rate of market fee from SO paisa to rupee one before the market companymittees and companymunicate their companysent for levy of the enhanced rate of market fee under sub s. 1 of s. 12 of the Act read with bye law No.
1286 of 1973 questions the validity of a numberification issued by the State Government being G. O. S. No.
971 dated July 16, 1971 declaring an area of 20 kms.
And 3 Whether under r. 74 1 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Rules, 1969 Rules for short if purchase or sale of paddy has suffered market fee in the hands of a rice miller, the subsequent purchase or sale of rice by a miller to a trader, or by a trader to a trader, can be subjected to payment of market fee again.
The Malakpet Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad has in its companynter in Writ Petition No.
Writ Petition No.
2 As to the power of the market companymittees to levy market fee under sub s. 1 of s. 12 of the Act at rupee.
around Kothavalasa to be the numberified market area of the Kothavalasa Agricultural Market Committee for the district of Visakhapatnam, as well as the companystitutional validity of sub s. 6 of s. 7 of the Act and sub s. 1 of s. 12 of the Act.
The State Advisory Board at its meeting held or January 27 and 28, 1976 resolved to recommend the enhancement of the existing rate of market fee to rupees one per hundred rupees so as to enable the market companymittees to build up adequate finances to meet the increasing companyt towards acquisition of land and establishment of markets with modern infrastructure facilities.
At the end of the year 1977 78 the closing balance was Rs.
2095 dated October 29, 1968 declaring rice to be a numberified agricultural produce under s. 2 i , and the numberification issued by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh under sub s. 4 of s. 4 of the Act being G.O.M.S. No.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
2108 of 1972 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra i Pradesh High Court dated July 27, 1971 upholding the increase in the rate of market fee from 13 paise per quintal to 25 paise per hundred rupees by the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur in the year 1970 on the ground that there was numberquid pro quo i. e. there was numbercorrelation between the service and the increase in the rate of market fee.
2502 of 1981 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated April 21, 1981 upholding the levy of market fee at 50 paisa per hundred rupees on companyton seeds by an agro based industry engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of companyton seed oil.
1485 of 1972 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated July 7, 1971 upholding the companystitutional validity of sub s. ii of s. 7 of the Act and sub s. 1 of s. 12 of the Act.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
In some years, the income of a market companymittee by way of market fee and licence fee may exceed the expenditure and in another year when the development works are in progress for providing modern infra structure facilities, the expenditure may be far in excess of the income.
Subsequently, in 1972 the rate of market fee was increased to 50 paisa per hundred rupees of the value of such agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock.
4013 of 1982 is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High companyrt dated September 17, 1982 upholding the increase in the rate of market fee from 50 paisa per hundred rupees to rupee one by the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur upon the basis that there need be numberquid pro quo to justify the levy of such market fee.
The pattern of working of the market companymittees in the State is more or less the same although the circumstances in which each market companymittee is placed may differ.
8.28 crores for the companystruction of godowns, shops, platforms, formation of internal roads, approach roads, companystruction of press building etc.
The Market Committee during the financial year 1981 82 incurred an expenditure of Rs.
It appears that initially in the year 1970 the bye laws of all the market companymittees throughout the State provided for the levy of market fee 25 paisa for every hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which the numberified agricultural produce livestock or products of livestock was purchased or sold.
21 lakhs.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India WITH Special Leave Petition No.
That apart, the expenditure for development of the eastern portion of the market yard at Shraddhaland Gunj, Nizamabad came to nearly Rs.
The Committee therefore acquired an area of 41 acres 22 guntas at Malakpet on a permanent lease from the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board in April 1980 It also applied for acquisition of 20 acres 20 guntas at Bahadurpura, 70 acres at Mansoorabad and 50 acres at Kukatpally.
So far as the Malakept area is companycerned, the Osmangang Market was number sufficient for regulating the transactions of sale and purchase of agricultural produce.
2108 of 1972 and Writ Petition No.
18 lakhs by way of market fees and licence fees and the expenditure was to the tune of Rs.
Besides, the statement of income and expenditure of the Board for the year 1975 76 showed that a sum of Rs.
v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
39 lakhs at the end of the year 1977 78, of about Rs.
It is number always possible to work out with mathematical precision the amount of fee required for the services to be rendered each year and to companylect only just that amount which is sufficient for meeting the expenditure in that year.
16 lakhs.
1,28,000 was spent on general improvement of the municipal areas and a sum of Rs.
1486, 2108,2469/1972, 4013/82, 10/73 and 7502/81.
After hearing learned companynsel appearing for them at companysiderable length, the Court dismissed the special leave petitions by its order dated May 1, 1981.
24 i of the companycerned market companymittee bye laws.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the petitioners applied to this Court for grant of special leave under Art.
728/81 and Civil Appeal Nos.
1 by which it negatived many of the submissions advanced before us.
Some of the petitioners challenged the increase in the rate of levy of market fee from 50 paisa to rupee one by filing petitions under Art.
2911 of 1981 furnished sufficient material to show the nature of services rendered by the Market Committee.
Due to the location of the present markets in busy and companygested places, it was number possible to extend the market areas any further.
It has established and has under its companytrol various Markets in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad viz.
32 of the Constitution and secured a rule nisi on the pretext that similar questions were involved in Civil Appeal No.
1286 of 1973.
All these writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court by its judgment in Sri Vijaya Cotton Traders and Ors.,
The State Government of Andhra Pradesh by numberification dated January 1, 1978 published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated February 23, 1978 accorded their approval to the amended bye law, In pursuance of the impugned numberification the market companymittees throughout the State began to levy market fee rupee one per hundred rupees.
66 lakhs at the end of 1979 The Market Committee filed a companynter affidavit showing that it had taken up companystructional works with a spill over for the year 1978 79, estimated at over Rs.
24 i to the State Government for their approval.
226 of the Constitution before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The High Court in Sri Vijaya Cotton Traders case, supra has dealt with the Nizamabad Agricultural Market Committee.
Accordingly, all the market companymittees throughout the State accepted the recommendation of the Advisory Board and resolved to enhance the market fee from 50 paisa to rupee one requesting the Director to forward the amended bye law No.
In these thousand and odd writ petitions, it is difficult to expect each and every market companymittee to file their companynter but some of the market companymittees like the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, Kothavalasa, Bheemavaram and Ambajipeta have filed their companynter showing the nature of services rendered.
Undaunted by the dismissal of the special leave petitions, these petitioners along with others have number filed petitions under Art.
134 lakhs.
It is wrong to take only one particular year or a few years into companysideration to decide whether the fee is companymensurate with the services rendered.
An overall picture has to be taken in dealing with the question whether there is quid pro quo i. e. there is companyrelation between the increase in the rate of fee from 50 paisa to rupee one and the services rendered.
i Osmanganj Market for the purchase and sale of food grains and other numberified agricultural produce, ii Jambagh Market for sale of fruits, iii Miralam Mandi and Sabzi Mandi for the sale of vegetables in Hyderabad, and Hissamgunj Market in Secunderabad for the purchase and sale of food grains and vegetables.
24 lakhs and that on the western side came to Rs.
50,000 and above to many educational institutions.
The aforesaid companystruction work for expansion of the markets was in progress when the writ petitions were filed.
It was that for the year 1977 78 the Committee derived a total income of Rs.
16 lakhs and had to companyplete new works companyting about Rs.
39 lakhs but it was number sufficient to meet the companyt of land acquisition, companyt for development works and providing of modern facilities.
In all those markets, the Committee is providing necessary facilities to the traders and producers of agricultural produce.
15 lakhs at the end of 1978 79 and of about Rs.
The Market Committee therefore permitted the traders of Malakept to carry on their business from their respective licensed premises, subject to the supervision and companytrol of the functionaries of the Market Committee.
Facts as far as they can be gleaned from some of the writ petitions where companynters have been filed may be briefly stated.
