Challa Venkata Subbaiah vs Agricultural Market Committee

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition assails the validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969 {for short ''the Rules''), which have been framed in exercise of the rule making power under the A.P. Act 16 of 1966 (for short ''the Act'').

Market yards and market areas were constituted u/s 4 of the Act and before constitution of the same, necessary notifications have to be issued. Firstly, a Draft Notification has been issued as contemplated u/s 3(1) of the Act and the same has to be published in the manner indicated under Rule 3(2) of the Rules. The notification has to be displayed at the offices of the local authorities mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The purpose of such publication is inviting objections with regard to the action to be taken u/s 4 of the Act. After considering the objections, a final notification has to be issued. In the instant case, the area is covered by the Agricultural Market Committee, Mylavaram of Krishna district, which has not been constituted for the first time independently. The area covered by the said Market Committee was already a part of the area of the Agricultural Market Committee, Vijayawada of Krishna district. For the reasons known to the authorities, they thought of carving out a separate Agricultural Market Committee for Mylavaram by taking it out from the purview of the Agricultural Market Committee, Vijayawada. In the writ petition before us, it is not stated or alleged that there was contravention of the provisions contained under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act or sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The said acts pertain to the constitution of the original Agricultural Market Committee, Vijayawada of which the area of Agricultural Market Committee, Mylavaram was a part. When a part is taken out of the main Agricultural Market Committee and constituted as a separate Agricultural Market Committee, what is contemplated by the provisions of the Act as also the Rules is issuance of notification. For this kind of notification, the publication as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules is not very much material for the reason that it is not for the first time that the Agricultural Market Committee, Mylavaram is constituted as stated above. Then the question boiled down to one of fact and not strictly of any legal position as to whether there is any notification issued constituting Mylavaram Agricultural Market Committee. There is a previous round of litigation in W.P. No. 17164 of 1993 and a learned single Judge of this Court by his Judgment dated 5-7-1994 disposed of the matter on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and directed an opportunity to be given. In this Writ Petition, what is contended is that there is no notification at all and that in the absence of notification, it cannot be construed that there is any Agricultural Market Committee so as to divest the petitioner of his right to hold weekly cattle market. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Market Committee has produced before us the Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No. 320, Food and Agriculture Department, dated 24-8-1982, which in so many words states that Vijayawada Agricultural Market Committee was constituted by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 2095, Food and Agriculture Department, dated 29-10-1968 gazetted in A.P. Gazette dated 7-11-1968 and that out of the said Agricultural Market Committee, Vijayawada, the area covered by Agricultural Market Committee, Mylavaram is taken out and is constituted as a separate Agricultural Market Committee for exercising the functions under the Act and the Rules. In view of the same, we conclude that there is a valid notification and for the reasons stated above, we presume that there is a valid notification both draft and final in view of the statutory presumption with regard to official acts u/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Before parting with the case, we may state that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules, which makes an exception of the liability of publication of the notification under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, has to be read only in the context of final notification and not with regard to preliminary notification for the reason that if the said rule is read as a complete exception, then it will be violative of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. It is too well settled a law that no rule can transgress or override or clash with the provisions of the Act. For that reason, we hold that sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules has to be read down as being directory only with regard to publication of final notification and not a preliminary notification.

In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in this Writ Petition. We make it clear that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Market Committee, Myla varam shall exercise its rights to collect the market fee and also regulate the market area, which includes the agricultural field of the petitioner only prospectively from to-day and no retrospective claim shall be made.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The fee of Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Market Committee, is fixed at Rs. 1200/- payable by the respondent within two months from the date of presentation of the Bill by the said Standing Counsel.