IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION No.15196 of 2021 AND WRIT PETITION No.18801 of 2021 Between:
The Wholesale Fruit Commission Agents Association Gaddiannaram, Represented by its President Mohd. Tajuddin & Two Others.
Petitioners VERSUS State of Telangana and Others.
Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.9.2021 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No _________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J 2 * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMRNATH GOUD + WRIT PETITION No.15196 of 2021 AND WRIT PETITION No.18801 of 2021 % 01.9.2021 # Between:
The Wholesale Fruit Commission Agents Association Gaddiannaram, Represented by its President Mohd. Tajuddin & Two Others.
Petitioners VERSUS State of Telangana and Others.
Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu ^ Counsel for the respondents : Addl. Advocate General <GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred 1 1971 (1) SCC 349 2 (1984) AIR (AP) 391 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION No.15196 of 2021 AND WRIT PETITION No.18801 of 2021 COMMON ORDER:
1 The points involved in both the Writ Petitions are intertwined and hence both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2 W.P.No.15196 of 2021 was filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in contemplating to demolish the structures at fruit market yard, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad for the purpose of construction of super-speciality hospital, depriving the members of the petitioner's association from carrying on their business in fruits as illegal and arbitrary and to further declare that the respondents are estopped from shifting the fruit market yard from Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad until they provide established market with all the basic amenities and infrastructure in any other notified market area. 3 W.P.No.18801 of 2021 was filed seeking to declare the impugned G.O.Rt.No.397 Agriculture and Cooperation (MKTGII) dated 03.8.2021 issued by the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Act 16/1966 and consequently to set aside the said G.O and direct the respondents not to shift the market from Gaddiannaram to any other place without notifying the market.
4 The facts of the case in W.P.No.15196 of 2021, in brief are that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are registered associations, 4 registered under the Societies Registration Act and all the members of the two associations are commission agents. Initially, the State Government, in order to avoid congestion at Jambagh area, shifted the fruit market to Gaddiannaram by acquiring about Ac.20.00 of land and established a market in the year 1986. From then onwards all the petitioners have been carrying out fruit business at Gaddiannaram. The present market has been constructed in an approved layout, surrounded by a compound wall. The market is having all the infrastructure and facilities. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.11 proposing to shift the Gaddiannaram fruit market to Koheda village, which is yet to be established by acquiring Ac.178-00 of barren land in Sy.No.507 and 548 situated at Koheda village, Ranga Reddy District.
5 When the Government intended to shift the fruit market taking advantage of the Covid-19 lockdown, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.6637 of 2020 and obtained interim orders. The petitioners also filed Writ Petition No.11634 of 2020 challenging the action of the respondent authorities in shifting the fruit market without providing amenities and this Hon'ble Court closed the said Writ Petition following a memo filed by the respondents stating that they are going to open the market at Gaddiannaram again.
6 The petitioners further assert that it appeared in press that the Government intends to construct super speciality hospital in the market yard place at Gaddiannaram and they 5 wanted to shift the market to Koheda where there are no amenities and facilities as mandated. Hence the Writ Petition. 7 The second respondent - Commissioner & Director of Agricultural Marketing filed counter affidavit stating that the Government of Telangana decided to set up four super speciality hospitals in Hyderabad and one of them is to come up at the fruit market, Gaddiannaram. As such the Agricultural Marketing Committee has been requested to hand over the premises for the purpose. As per the original proposal, Gaddiannaram fruit market will be shifted to Koheda village where Ac.178.09 gts has already been acquired and after providing all the infrastructural facilities therein. The place identified at Koheda will be suitable for fruit trade and also ease the problem of coming to the Gaddiannaram market which is currently located in the heart of the congested city.
8 The Agricultural Marketing Committee (AMC), Gaddiannaram renewed the license up to March 2024 with a condition in the lease deed that in the event of shifting of the market for any reason, required facilities will be provided by the AMC, Gaddiannaram to carry on the business transaction. None of the officials of the market committee and other officials have taken any steps to demolish the structures in the fruit market, Gaddiannaram. It is denied that the respondents are trying to evict the petitioners forcibly from their business premises.
69 It is submitted that in view of the instructions issued by the Government of Telangana, that the Government is intending to construct super speciality hospital in the existing fruit market land, the market authorities are making efforts in identifying alternative locations for relocating the existing fruit market in the interest of farmers/growers/purchasers and others. 10 It is further submitted that before shifting fruit market from Gaddiannaram from the present place to Batasingaram, all the stake holders will be called for a meeting and they will be explained about the facilities that are available at Batasingaram where the fruit market will be shifted on a temporary basis till it is shifted to its permanent location at Koheda. Hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition in larger public interest. 11 The fourth respondent - The Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, filed counter stating that in view of the emergent situation to have immediate medical facilities to the people at large due to COVID - 19 pandemic, shifting of Gaddiannaram fruit market to a temporary location is necessitated. In that connection the fruit market Gaddiannaram identified suitable alternative area at HMDA Logistic Park at Batasingaram established in Ac.40.00, which is very close to the Outer ring road area of the AMC, Gaddiannaram and very close to the market, which is suitable for fruit trade. Taking the factual and infrastructural situation into consideration, the Department of Agricultural Marketing submitted proposal to the Government to shift the fruit market Gaddiannaram to the HMDA Logistic Park at Batasingaram. It is further submitted 7 that so far none of the officials of the market committee and other officials have taken any steps to demolish the structures in the fruit market, Gaddiannaram.
12 The facts of the case in W.P.No.18801 of 2021, in brief, are that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are registered associations, registered under the Societies Registration Act and all the members of the two associations are commission agents. In order to regularize the purchase and sale of notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock, the erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh enacted Act 16/1966 named as AP (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 with effect from 19.10.1967.
13 After bifurcation of the State, the Government of Telangana has adopted the said Act, vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 02.8.2014. The Act envisages constitution of a committee under section 4 of the Act consisting of representatives of growers, representatives of traders and others apart from ex-officio members. The Government shall notify the area under section 3 and the committee shall establish market or markets for the notified area.
14 Initially the market was located at Jambagh and in order to avoid congestion, the then State Government intended to shift the market from there. The Market Committee acquired land of Ac.22.00 at Gaddiannaram and the Government also declared the notified area under section 4 (4) of the Act. The Market Committee got the layout approved to construct buildings and 8 constructed buildings with all the basic amenities, providing shop cum godown to almost all the traders who are carrying business at Jambagh.
15 It is submitted that the Market Committee intended to expand the market by acquiring more extent of land at the outskirts of Hyderabad and that the petitioners also supported for such establishment of market in a larger extent of land n view of increase of growers, traders and commission agents. 16 In that regard, the Market Committee acquired land to an extent of 178 acres in Sy.No.507 and 548 of Koheda Village, Ranga Reddy District. The AMC, is yet to begin developmental activities at Koheda. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 13.02.2020 notifying the notified market area and establishment of market at Koheda. The AMC is yet to make the land suitable for construction of buildings, obtain sanctioned layout, lay roads, get water and electricity etc. 17 It is submitted that under the pressure of some vested interests, the market was intended to shift to Koheda in the month of April 2020 temporarily where no market was established. At that stage, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.6637 of 2020 wherein this Court granted interim orders to enable the petitioners to continue the business at Gaddiannaram. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 28.8.2020 when the Director of Marketing filed Memo on 27.8.2020 to reopen the market at Gaddiannaram in view of the fact that the temporary sheds constructed at Koheda were 9 demolished due to the rains resulting in several persons injured and hospitalized.
18 It is submitted that the AMC and the vested interests seriously tried to shift the market by hook or crook. At that stage, the Government announced that they intend to construct a super speciality hospital at market place at Gaddiannaram. At that stage, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.15196 of 2021. While the matter stood thus, the Government issued the impugned G.O.Rt.No.397 Agriculture and Cooperation (MKTGII) dated 03.8.2021 according permission to Director of Marketing to handover the land belonging to AMC, Gaddiannaram to Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department for construction of a super speciality hospital and further according permission to shift the Fruit Market, Gaddiannaram to Logistic Park at Batasingaram on payment of lease amount of 15 lakhs PM to HMDA Logistic park. Hence the Writ Petition. 19 Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 wherein it is stated that with regard to the newly notified Koheda market, where the existing fruit market Kothapet is proposed to be located permanently, land leveling has taken place for 30 acres of land besides formation of approach road from outer ring road and internal roads. All the efforts are being made to complete the project within a span of one year. 20 During the hearing on 16.8.2021, this Hon'ble Court directed the Special Government Pleader O/o Additional Advocate General to visit the existing fruit market yard, 10 Kothapet, Hyderabad and newly notified fruit market at Koheda and proposed temporary fruit market at Batasingaram, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Special Government pleader visited the above three places on 19.8.2021 and examined the existing infrastructure and facilities and expressed his satisfaction at the existing amenities, Batasingaram. Hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 21 Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed separate counter affidavit as per the impugned G.O.Ms.No.397 dated 03.8.2021, the Government directed to create additional facilities as required and accordingly administrative sanction of Rs.68.00 lakhs was accorded for creating additional facilities at Batasingaram Logistic Park. It is further submitted that the Market Committee, Gaddiannaram unanimously resolved in its committee meeting held on 03.7.2021 to welcome the decision of the Government of constructing super speciality hospital at Gaddiannaram and also decided to handover possession of fruit market, Gaddiannaram to an extent of Ac.22.05 gts to the Government for the intended purpose. It is also submitted that additional facilities are being provided at Batasingaram for the welfare of the farmers.
22 It is further submitted that as per the instructions of the Government, all the stake holders of AMC Gaddiannaram were called for a meeting held on 07.8.2021 and explained about the facilities that are going to be provided and available at Batasingaram where the fruit market is going to be shifted on temporary basis until it is shifted to its permanent location at 11 Koheda duly creating all amenities and facilities permanently as required. Hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 23 The writ petitioners filed reply affidavits to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents denying the various contents submitted in the counter affidavit and reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 24 Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. G. Bhanu Priya, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while welcoming the intention of the Government to construct a super speciality hospital at Gaddiannaram on one hand, but on the other hand opposed the action of the respondent authorities stating that the respondents are making efforts to establish a market at Koheda where the amenities and facilities are not provided in full fledged manner. It is his submission that the authorities are taking steps to demolish the existing structures at Gaddiannaram in which the petitioners are maintaining the offices and godowns.
25 It is his primary contention that if the respondents are intending to shift the market from Gaddiannaram they have to provide all the required facilities to the farmers / growers / purchasers and others and then only they can shift the market to any other place of their choice.
26 If the Government has determined to shift the market to Koheda, they should make all the arrangements in full fledged manner at Koheda and only after providing all the required amenities they may shift the market from Gaddiannaram to 12 Koheda, but in the meantime, there is no necessity to shift the market to Batasingaram temporarily where there are no facilities.
27 The petitioners have also filed the photographs showing the stage of the developments made on the spot. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are registered associations, registered under the Societies Registration Act and hence they have locus to file the Writ Petition. He relied on the ratio laid down in Ramakrishna Hari Hegde V. The Market Committee, Sirsi1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para No.13 as follows:
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondents that the Appellants and Respondent 3 had sufficient time till now to make arrangements to shift their business, as such they are not entitled to complain, but the contention on behalf of the Appellants is that they were entitled to challenge the Notification and as they had invested large amounts in buildings etc. in the three Gallis they are justified in asking this Court to direct Respondents to have these areas declared as a sub-Market area. While the Government has the power to issue a Notification in public interest & to declare the area specified in the impugned Notification as the Principal Market area, without necessarily declaring other areas simultaneously as sub- Market area, in our view sufficient time should have been given for the appellants, Respondent 3 and other persons doing business in the area of the three Gallis to shift their business. As long as the Notification prohibited them from doing business in those Gallis they had a right to challenge the validity of that Notification. No doubt the Govt. could have declared the three Gallis as sub-Market Yard but it is not for this Court to arrogate to itself the functions of the Govt. and direct them to do so merely because that would be one of the ways in which the impugned Notification can be rectified. The learned Advocate for the Market Committee, however, consistent with the stand taken by the Market Committee in its counter before the High Court that it had requested the Govt. to allow the business in the Gallis to be carried on for one or two years agrees to give one and a half years time for the Appellants and Respondents to enable them to shift during this period, to the Principal Market Yard declared under the impugned Notification and till then permit them to continue their business in the three Gallis. The period agreed to in our view is a reasonable period within which the Appellants and Respondents 3 can shift their business to the new Market Area and till then they should not be prohibited from doing business in the Market area of the three Gallis as heretofore. In view of this agreement except to give the above direction there is no need to strike down the Notification.
1 1971 (1) SCC 349 13 28 The learned senior counsel also relied on the ratio laid down in Agricultural Market Committee Anantapur V. Kulluru Subbi Reddy2 in support of his contentions. 29 On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the Government is intending to construct super speciality hospital in the existing fruit market land, the market authorities are making efforts in identifying alternative locations for relocating the existing fruit market in the interest of farmers. He further submitted that in view of the emergent situation to have immediate medical facilities to the people at large due to COVID - 19 pandemic, shifting of Gaddiannaram fruit market to a temporary location is necessitated.
30 In that connection the fruit market Gaddiannaram identified suitable alternative area at HMDA Logistic Park at Batasingaram established in Ac.40.00, which is very close to the Outer ring road area of the AMC, Gaddiannaram and very close to the market and it is suitable for fruit trade. 31 He further submitted that the infrastructure and facilities available at Batasingaram, which is also under the notified area of the AMC, Gaddiannaram, is more convenient and comfortable when compared to the facilities and amenities available at the existing fruit market, Gaddiannaram.
32 He further submitted that as per the impugned G.O, the Government directed to create additional facilities at 2 (1984) AIR (AP) 391 14 Batasingaram as required and accordingly administrative sanction of Rs.68.00 lakhs was accorded.
33 He further submitted that the AMC, Gaddiannaram resolved in its meeting held on 03.7.2021 to welcome the decision of the Government for construction of super speciality hospital at the existing fruit market, Gaddiannaram in view of the flow of patients especially for the welfare of common public during the pandemic situation in the larger interest of the public and also decided to handover the possession of the fruit market, Gaddiannaram to an extent of Ac.22.05 to the Government for construction of super speciality hospital in its place and also decided for temporary shifting of the existing fruit market to Batasingaram until the permanent structures being provided at Koheda market.
34 He further submitted that as per Rule 143 (2) of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Market rules, 1969, the Government is having the power in matters relating to acquisition, purchase and disposal of movable and immovable properties of the Market Committee.
35 He further submitted that under the Notified Area of Agricultural Market Committee, five Mandals are included in which Batasingaram village located. Therefore, Batasingaram village which is now identified for shifting of fruit market under the AMC, Gaddiannaram is a notified area under section 3 of Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and that since Batasingaram has been identified for temporary 15 shifting of fruit market under AMC, Gaddiannaram, a declaration will be issued by the Government notifying the HMDA Logistic Park at Batasingaram as Market Area under Section 4 of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 before actual shifting.
36 As seen from the record, the present arrangement i.e. shifting of the AMC Gaddiannaram to Batasingaram is only a temporary one and for the present a sum of Rs.68.00 lakhs has been sanctioned for providing additional facilities at Batasingaram to provide additional required need base facilities. So far as the temporary arrangement at Batasingaram is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with shifting of AMC, Gaddiannaram to Batasingaram, since it is a laudable object of the Government to construct super speciality hospitals at Gaddiannaram market area. The structures at Batasingaram, though they appear to be temporarily made, are better than the some of the existing structures at Gaddiannaram market area. Usually as and when there is any change in system or a policyi decision is taken, it is obvious that certain hardships are caused and anyone needs to face it and this cannot stop the development and change.
37 In the process of achieving laudable object, if the Government considers that certain procedural aspects in issuing the notification or any other things are required to be met, they may take steps to issue the same or to ratify. 16 38 Moreover, as seen from G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 16.6.2012, the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh has decided to relocate the fruit market, Gaddiannaram somewhere else since it is becoming health hazard to the neighbouring residential localities and also due to the movement of heavy vehicles and light transport vehicles people in and around the market yard are subjected to congestion and traffic problem. Not only contemplating the idea of establishing a super speciality hospital in the existing fruit market, Gaddiannaram, but also keeping in view the above conditions, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 13.02.2020.
39 As far as the decision of the Government to construct super speciality hospitals is concerned, definitely it is a laudable object. Right to Health is a part and parcel of Right to Life and therefore right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen of India under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Article 19 cannot prevail upon Article 21 where the right and liberty of the citizen is more important than business. It is the primary duty of a welfare State under Article 47 of the Constitution to provide food, health, education etc., Since it is a categorical statement of the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents that the market at Koheda will be constructed within a year, and since the Government is contemplating to construct super speciality hospitals in specified areas, certainly the present market at Gaddiannaram has to be shifted to some other place where it can be conveniently located. So keeping in view of the above 17 situation, the respondent authorities identified Batasingaram for establishment of the fruit market temporarily and the Government also sanctioned Rs.68.00 lakhs for provision of the additional facilities as required, till the market is permanently shifted to Koheda. Therefore, I see no reason for the petitioners to oppose the policy of the Government. The respondent authorities have submitted the situation in black and white to understand what is right and wrong in their counter affidavits. So they are more comfortable than the facilities existing at Gaddiannaram. Hence the farmers need not have to face any problem. Of course, this is only a temporary one. 40 Since the learned Advocate General categorically submitted that the permanent market at Koheda will come up within one year and the work is in progress, without expressing any opinion with regard to Koheda market as the work is in progress, this Court expresses its concern for both sides to have negotiations for completing the market at Koheda. 41 The observations made in the judgments cited above, with due respect, cannot be made applicable to the temporary market at Batasingaram, but can be definitely considered where permanent market is established at Koheda. Since in the present case the Government is on the move to establish a permanent market at Koheda and in the meantime in order to achieve a laudable object, which is paramount consideration, intends to establish the market temporarily at Batasingaram. The judgments cited above have no relevance for Batasingaram AMC because it is only a temporary arrangement. In so far as 18 applicability of the judgments cited above with regard to the permanent arrangements at Koheda, as it will take some time i.e. around one year, it is premature to decide the matter in the light of the judgments cited above. But in so far as establishment of AMC at Batasingaram, though on temporary basis, most of the guidelines given in the above judgments are meted out by the Government.
42 Moreover it is a categorical statement of the 4th respondent in their counter affidavit that before shifting Gaddiannaram fruit market from the present place to Batasingaram, all the stake holders will be called for a meeting and they will be explained about the facilities that are available at Batasingaram where the fruit market will be shifted on a temporary basis till it is shifted to its permanent location at Koheda.
43 Therefore, in my considered opinion, the respondent authorities are taking every reasonable step for smooth running of the things in their pursuit to shift the fruit market from Gaddiannaram to Batasingaram by providing all the required facilities to the farmers and others. So the action of the Government in issuing the G.O.Rt.No.397 dated 03.8.2021 does not call for any interference.
44 The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out certain procedural irregularities committed by the Government, Market Committee in the present exercise of shifting the market. Though this Court is convinced on the technical aspects and 19 laches on the part of the Market Committee and the Government, this Court is not inclined to give any credence to the same in view of the priority given by the Government to build a super speciality hospital during Covid period. The pragmatic approach needs to be appreciated in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
45 This Court directed the Government Pleader to make a personal visit to the above market areas and file his inspection report along with photographs. Accordingly, an inspection has been made on 16.8.2021 and photographs have been filed before this Court. On perusal of the enquiry report and the photographs this Court finds that the temporary market proposed at Batasingaram is having reasonably good facilities for shifting. Of course the market at Koheda is yet to be established and it requires some time. The trades are at liberty to submit their proposals and requirements for establishment of market at Koheda.
46. Even in temporary market, the Government shall take care and provide all the required facilities at the earliest. One month time is granted from today for vacating the market at Gaddiannaram and to relocate in temporary market at Batasingaram till the permanent market at Koheda is established. The Government shall provide assistance if any to the traders while shifting. The steps for shifting the market shall be expedited in order to start the super speciality hospital construction on war footing basis to fight the Covid situation more effectively in the interest of citizens. 20 47 For the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners fail to establish their grievance so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
48 In the result, both the Writ Petitions i.e. W.P.No.15196 and 18801 of 2021 are dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these Writ Petitions shall also stand dismissed.
________________________________ JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD Date: 01.9.2021 L.R. Copy be marked.
B/o Kvsn