LexG. V. GUNAYYA CHETTY & ANR versus V. DASARATHARAMAIAH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
..
•
2H
G. V. GUNAYYA CHEITY & ANR
v.
V. DASARATHARAMAJAH & ORS.
April 21, 1975
[A. ALAG!R!SWAM!, P. N. BHAGWAT! AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.)
B
A ndhra Pradesh Agricultural Prvduce and Live-Stock Markets Act_. 1966,
cl. (iv) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 and proviso to cl. (ir), and section 7 and
2z.!._tirfarket comniiJtee, constitution of-1Uen1bers . representing
traders
to
be elected, bur they are to be nominated by Govern1nent H1heri 111arket cont-
niittee is constituted for the first thne-1\Tornir.ation of menibers reprcsentin;:
tradl?rs to the newlv
constituted
fnarket
cot11111ittee after
sttpersession, if - C
legal.
•
The Governn1ent, by a notificalion issued under sec .. 3,
~ub-sec. (3) of
the Andhra Pradesh Agricnltural Produce and Live-Stock ?lfarkets 1\ct, 1966,
declared the area compri~ed in Machilipatnam, Bandar and Divi taluka to be
notified area for the purposes of the Act. Th.is waS .follO\\'ed by a notification
dated 30th October, 1969 constih1ting a i\larket Con1mittee for the notifie4
area under s. 4, sub-s. (1) of the Act. The Market Committee was to con-
D
sist of twelve men1bers to b.e appointed in the n1anner set out ins. 5, sub-s. (1)
-0f the Act. Six out of these twelve members \\'ere nominated hy the Go\'c1n-
ment from among . the gro\vcrs of agricultural produce and owners of live-
stock undef s. 5, snb-s. (1), cl. (i), two were nominat~d by the Govcrnn1ent from
among traders under proviso to s. 5 sub-~. (1)
cl.
(iv_) and the Agricul-
h1re Extension Ollicer. M'ovva was nom.inated by the Government as dcpartn1en-
tal representative under s. 5, snb-s. (1), cl. (iii)(a).
The Chairmcin of the
l\Iarket Comn1ittee was elected on 24th January, 1970. Jn. consequence of the
E
judgment of the High Court of _Andhra Pradesh in Donde Ran1a Rao v. State
A.I.R. 1971 Andhra Pradesh 353), the Government superseded 1he Market
Committee. for a pcr'iod of six months on the ground that it was not competent
to perform the duties imposed on it by or _un'der the Act. The initial period of
"Six months for which the Market Comn1ittee v:as. superseded \Vas further extent.led
and just before the expiration of the extended period of supersession, the Gov-
ernment made an order dated 7th December, 1972 constituting a f!eW l\.!arkct
Committee by nominating six persons out of growers of agric,ultural produce and
F
owners of livestock under s. 5, sub-s.(1), cl.(i), the President of the Divi-
seema Cooperative Marketing Society, Avanigadda under s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (ii),
the Agricultural Extension
Officer.
~fovva as departmental
representatives
under s. 5, sub-s. (1 ), cl. (iii) (a) nnd three persons representing traders un-
der the proviso to snb-cl. (iv) of s. 5, sub-s. (l). Though Divi taluk formed
pa'ft of the notified area, no grower or trader fom Divi Taluk _was nominated
'On the Market Committee; all the six representatives of growers belonged to
Badar Taluka \Vhile nll the three representatives of traders belonged to Machi!i-
patnam taluk. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who we'fe two of the traders from
G
Divi Taluk, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 1693 of 1973 in the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh cha1lenging the validity of the order dated 7lh Decem-
ber, 1972 in so far as it nominated 'fepresentatives of traders on the A-Iarket
Con1mittee under the Proviso to cl. {iv) of s11b-s. (1) of s. 5. The argun1ent of
re~pondent~ Nos. 1. and 2 was that it \vas the main part of cl. (iv) of sub-s.(J)
of s. 5 \Vh1ch app!Ied and not the Proviso and, therefore the Government \Vas
not entitled to nominate re·presentatives of traders but tbev were liable to be
elected by traders licensed. under s. 7, sub-s. (1) from amo-Ilgst·themselves. The
learned Single Judge of the High C.ourt dismissed the Writ.. Petiiion. Thereupon
H
Respondents 1 and 2 prefe1Ted nn appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent to
a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench disagreed \Vith the view taken by the learned Singie
Ju.dge and. held that when the Government constituted the new ~.farket Com-
mittee by It~ orde'f dated 7_th December, 197? on !he expiratiri.n of the pP.riod
of supcrsess1on of the earher Market Comm1tteei it did not constitute a new
. - "*
_ .. ,
A
220
SUPREME COORT REPORTS
[1975] SUPP. s.c.n.
A
J\Iarkct Committee for the first time, and therefore, the case \Vas governed.,
not by the proviso, but by the main pmt of s. 5, sub-s. (1), cl. (iv) and the
order dateExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.