The Wholesale Fruit Commission ... vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2513 Tel

     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

* 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

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,

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

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.

9 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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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