LexFRUIT COMMISSION AGENTS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- FRUIT COMMISSION AGENTS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. A V. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 B [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.J Agricultural Produce Market Committee-Revision of rent of shops/godowns-Challenged-Held: Various factors were taken into consideration by Market Committee before fixing the revised rent- C Fixation of rent is an executive function and judiciary cannot interfere with the same except on Wednesbury principles-High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition-Administrative Law-Executive decision-Interference with. D Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR (1996) SC 11 and S. C. Chandra and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., JT (2007) 104 SC 272, relied on. "The Spirit of Laws" by Montesquieu, XI th Chapter, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2426- 2428 of 2000. E From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.1997 and 29.4.1999 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. F No. 2820of1992 and W.P. Rev. Misc. P. Nos. 9554 & 9555of1997 respectively. M.N. Rao and T.V. Narayana, T.N. Rao, Manjeet Kirpal, Paramjeet and D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellants. G --( R. Sundarvardhan, B. Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar, D. Bharathi Reddy and Debojit Borkakati for the Respondents. • The following Order of the Court was delivered: 149 H 150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R. - A ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. "<' 2. These appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court B dated 17.2.1997 in W.P. No. 2820of1992 which has followed the decision of the High Court dated 17.2.1997 in W.P. No. 2806 of 1992. 3. We have carefully perused the decision of the High Court in W.P. No. 2806 of 1992 and find no infirmity therein. ~ c 4. The facts of the case are that the wholesale business in fruits was located at Jambagh area in Hyderabad city. Because of its location on either side of the road it gave rise to a lot of traffic problems, and there were no facilities to the sellers and purchasers. Hence to ease the growing traffic problems and provide better marketing facilities the Agricultural D Market Committee acquired 22 acres of spacious land at Gaddiannaram on the outskirts of Hyderabad city at a cost of Rs. 3 .5 crores in 1985 for shifting of the wholesale market there. It is alleged by the respondents that the type-design and proposed construction of shop-cun1-godowns ' ...... (sheds) was taken up only after consultation with the representatives of the Fruit Commission Agents who were doing business in Jambagh area, E and shops were constructed accordingly. 5. A procedure was formulated duly constituting a sub-committee for allotment of shops, and the sub-committee invited the representatives of the Fruit Commission Agents, and after consultation with them the shop- cum-godowns were allotted on lease for eleven months based on the l F ~ quantum of business turnover of each individual subject to payment of monthly rent as fixed by the I gicu'·ural Market Committee, Hyderabad. 6. On allotment of shop-cum-godowns the Commission agents have shifted their wholesale business to the Fruit Market at Gaddiannaram. It G is stated that the Market Committee has constructed shop-cum-godowns on semi-permanent basis, the height of each shed wall being 14' with brick masonry wall in cement mortar, well fabricated steel tubular trusses covered by CGI sheets. 7. The appellants have alleged that the sheds are not pucca ,._ H constructions and are not permanent in nature, but this has been denied -( FRUIT COMMISSION AGENTSASSOCIATIONv. GOVT.151 OFANDHRAPRADESH by the respondents. It is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on this A issue, and there is no discussion on this question in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Hence it is evident that this point was not pressed before the High Court. 8. The dispute in this case is about the rent. The rent was fixed by the Market Committee taking into consideration the view expressed by B the Fruit Commission Agents, and the Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 589 Food & Agriculture Department dated 6.4.1987 approved of the rent. The Market Committee reviewed the rent after two years on the recommendation of the Executive Engineer of the Market Committee. 9. The respondents have alleged that they have spent Rs.3.50 crores C for purchase of the land, and h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.