Telangana High Court

Gayatri Bio Organics Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 28 June, 2024

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                 WRIT PETITION No.16537 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings No.AGM-S-I/9952/2014, dated 30.04.2024 passed by respondent No.2 and quash the same as being illegal, unjust, perverse, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short "the Act") and the Telangana (Agriculture Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969..."

2. Heard Sri A.Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Hari Preeth, learned Standing

Counsel for Agricultural Market Committee appearing for

respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner is the company incorporated under the

provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and factories of the

petitioner is located at Nandikandi Village, Sadasivpet Mandal,

Sangareddy District (erstwhile Medak District). It is stated that

the petitioner-company was holding license bearing No.113

granted by respondent No.3 i.e., Agriculture Market Committee

under Section 7(1) of the Act and the Rules made there under and

CVBR,J wp_16537_2024

the same is valid for the period from 2009 to 2014. The

petitioner-company used to purchase the maize from various

traders, as raw material, to manufacture Starch, Sorbitol and

other products. It is stated that based on the requirement of

maize time to time issued purchase orders to the licensed traders

located in various parts of the State. It is further stated that

respondent No.3 issued proceedings for payment of agricultural

market fee for the assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011,

2011-2012 and 2012-2013 and aggrieved by the said assessment

orders, the petitioner-company has filed revisions under Section

12(F) of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets

Act, 1966 (for short "the Act") on the file of respondent No.2. On

confirmation of the assessment orders by the Revisional

authority, the petitioner filed W.P.No.38370 of 2017 on the file of

this Court and the same was allowed by this Court vide order,

dated 05.12.2017, on the following observations:

"It is to be seen that the impugned order is passed basing on the report of the Committee which is called for by the 2nd respondent pending revision and the petitioner was also not furnished copy of the said report. It is alleged that even the committee also did not issue notice to the petitioner. Though appeal lies under Section 12 G of the Act, since the 2nd respondent passed orders in violation of principles of natural justice by calling a report from the committee pending revision and the said report is not furnished to the petitioner, only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order

CVBR,J wp_16537_2024

is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the revision, afresh, after serving a copy of the report of the committee on the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If petitioner does not cooperate, it is open for the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits."

4. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court in

W.P.No.38370 of 2017 and after considering the objections

submitted by the petitioner, the respondents passed the impugned

order vide No.AGM-S-I/9952/2014, dated 30.04.2024 and the

same reads as under:

"M/s Gayatri Bio-Organics Ltd., Nandikandi village, Sadasivpet mandal have submitted the Revision Petition through the reference 1st cited duly requesting for quashing the Assessment orders passed by the Secretary AMC, Sadasivpet for the year 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-13 on the ground that, the demand raised by the Assessing Authority is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. Further it has been requested to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the said Assessment orders pending disposal of their revision application, before availing remedies available in the statutory Appeal, as provided under Section 12(E) of the Market Acts, 1966 duly depositing the Market fee Assessed.

Whereas vide reference 2nd cited, the Revision Petition of M/s Gayatri Bio-Organics Ltd., have been examined and meeting with the representatives of said company was convened on 01.08.2014 in the office of the undersigned. After hearing the representatives of M/s Gayatri Bio-Organics Ltd., and basing on the recommendations of the committee constituted for this purpose, the undersigned in the capacity of the Revisionary authority under the powers conferred under Section 12-F of the Market Act 1966, the Revision Petiton submitted by M/s

CVBR,J wp_16537_2024

Gayatri Bio. Organics Ltd., which merits no consideration and do hereby Rejected.

Whereas vide reference 3rd cited, a case has been filed by M/s Gayatri Bio-Organics Ltd., in the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad in W.P. No. 38370 of 2017 duly challenging the orders issued by the Director of Agril. Marketing, Hyderabad, The Hon'ble High Court has issued the orders "directing the 2nd respondent i.e., Director of Agril. Marketing, Hyderabad to dispose of the revision afresh, after serving a copy of the report of the committee on the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If petitioner does not co-operate it is open for the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the merits".

M/s Gayatri Bio-Organics Ltd., Nandikandi village, Sadasivpet mandal have submitted the Revision Petition through the reference 4th cited, duly requesting the Hon'ble revision Authority may be pleased to recall the report Dt:20.01.2015 submitted by the committee and direct the committee to conduct fresh enquiry by giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessee and after considering the objections of the Assessee, if any, and submit report afresh. In the alternative the Hon'ble Revision Authority may be pleased to direct the Assessing Authority to conduct re-Assessment for the Assessment year 2009- 2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012- 2013 after giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessee and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.

Accordingly, the Revision Authority has permitted the petitioner and on 28.06.2019 hearing was conducted. After hearing the representatives of M/s Gayatri Bio-Organics Ltd., there is no new grounds submitted by the firm in their version petition.

In view of the above, the Revision Authority under the powers conferred under Section 12-F of the Markets Act 1966 has rejected the Revision Petition submitted by M/s Gayathri Bio-Organics Ltd and directing the firm to pay the Market fee for an amount of

CVBR,J wp_16537_2024

Rs.97,29,374/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Four Only) Assessed during the year 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

respondents have not assigned any valid reason while passing the

impugned order and the same is bereft of reasons and the writ

petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is

maintainable inspite of availability of alternative remedy where the

statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions

of the law and in deficiency of fundamental principles of judicial

procedure and the action on their part amounts to violation of

principles of natural justice. For the above principles, learned

counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Kranti Associates Private Limited and another v. Masood

Ahmed Khan and others 1. It is further contention of the learned

counsel that even after requesting the respondents to conduct a

fresh enquiry and furnish copy of the report which is the basis for

assessment for the years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13,

the respondents instead of furnishing copy of the said report, has

arbitrarily proceeded to decide and finalise the assessment orders

and prayed to allow the writ petition.

(2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 496

CVBR,J wp_16537_2024

6. Opposing the submissions of the petitioner, the learned

counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that earlier,

the petitioner filed W.P.No.38370 of 2017 on the file of this Court

and the same was disposed of on 05.12.2017 wherein this Court

directed the respondent No.2 therein to dispose the revision after

supplying the copy of the report and after providing an opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of the directions issued

by this Court, the respondents have furnished copies of the report

for the subject assessment years and provided personally hearing

to the petitioner and therefore, it is not entitled to make a

representation to call for fresh report for the assessment years and

contest the matter that the assessment orders passed by

authorities are illegal.

7. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides

and perused the record.

8. Admittedly, earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.38370 of 2017

on the file of this Court on the ground that the committee

constituted for the assessment of market fee for the assessment

years has not supplied the report to enable the petitioner to file

objections. This Court taking into consideration of the said fact,

allowed the said writ petition on the ground of violation of

CVBR,J wp_16537_2024

principles of natural justice and directed the respondents therein

to furnish the copy of the report to the petitioner to submit

explanation to the assessment orders for the years 2009-10, 2010-

11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. After receipt of the said report, the

petitioner made an application dated 20.01.2015 requesting the

committee to conduct fresh enquiry by giving reasonable

opportunity. Since there was no direction issued by this Court,

directing the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry into the

grievances of the petitioner for the assessment orders, the

respondents have rightly furnished the copy of the report which is

basis for passing assessments orders for the years 2009-10, 2010-

11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, and after hearing the petitioner, has

confirmed the assessment orders vide impugned proceedings

No.AGM-S-I/9952/2014, dated 30.04.2024.

9. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon 2 , the

Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the following principles for

entertaining the writ petitions, when alternative remedy is

available.

"43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters

(2010) 8 SCC 110 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260]

CVBR,J wp_16537_2024

involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.

55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing

CVBR,J wp_16537_2024

orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.""

10. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass

Agarwal 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

"15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."

11. In PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and

others 4 the Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the principles laid

down above, has observed that the High Courts will not entertain a

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective

(2014) 1 SCC 603

2024 (3) ALD 142 (SC)

CVBR,J wp_16537_2024

alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the

statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself

contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. In the instant

case, eelier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.38370 of 2017 on the file of

this Court and the same was allowed directing the respondents to