Raghavendra Rice & Dall Mill, Kuchipudi & 56 others v. The Government of A.P

Judgment

9. AIR 1957 SC 768. 1984(1) ALD 221. 1997(5) ALD 63 (DB) 1996(4) ALD 801 (D.B) AIR 1958 MP 16 AIR 1961 SC 935 AIR 1954 SC 139 AIR 1958 SC 956 AIR 1991 SC 1289

10. AIR 1958 SC 414

11. AIR 1967 SC 276

12. AIR 2000 SC 1261

13. AIR 1983 SC 1246 C/15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18977 of 2002 Between: 1 Jayakrishna Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Director, Manam Nageswara Rao. 2 Sree Vasavi Rice Mill, Industrial Estate, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Thatavarthi Narayana S/o Pedanarayana, Aged: 59 years. 3 Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Rice Working Co., Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its partner Kollapudi Subba Rao, S/o Punnaiah, Aged: 55 years. 4 Sree Dhanalakshmi Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its partner Kollapudi Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged: 64 years. 5 Dhanalakshmi Rice Working Co., Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Kollapudi Subba rao S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged: 64 years. 6 Sri Ramanjaneya Rice Mill, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor P. Ranga Rao S/o Venkateswarlu, aged: 42 years. 7 Sri Sainadh Rice Mill, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Thatavarthi Malekondrayudu S/o Pedanarayana, Aged: 73 years. 8 Sree Lakshmi Narayana Rice Mill, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Thatavarthi Adinarayana S/o Venkatanarayana, age: 42 years. 9 Sita Rama Rice Mill, Industrial Estate, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner T.V. Satyanarayuana S/o Gurvaiah, age: 30 years. 10 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Kajipalem, Pittalapalem Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri K.V. Subba rao S/o Koteswara Rao, age: 42 years. 11 Vijayalakshmi Rice Mill, Kukkalavaripalem, West Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Prporietor Govada Satyanarayana S/o Subba rao, age: 48 years. 12 Sri Jayalakshmi Rice Mill, Industrial Estate, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its partner Thatavarthi Chandranarayana s/o Pedanarayana, age: 48 years. 13 Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Bethapudi, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor P. Venkateswara Rao S/o Venkatasubbaiah, age: 48 years. 14 Mubarak Rice Mill, Chandole, P.V.Palem Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Abdul Hameed S/o Abdul Kareem, age: 74 years. 15 Sri Manikanta Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner P. Subba Rao S/o Kotaiah, age: 41 years. 16 Sri Venugopala Traders, Poondla, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Ankata Chenchu Subba Rao S/o Suryaprakashrao, age: 47 years. 17 Kameswari Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Kurra Srinivasa Rao, S/o Brahmaiah, age: 42 years. 18 Sri Lakshmi Balaji Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner G.V.V. Anjaneyulu S/o Venkatanarasaiah, age: 38 years. 19 Kommineni Radhakrishna Murthy, rep. by Proprietor N. Subba Rao, Vedullapalli, Guntur District 20 Venkateswara Rice Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner Chinni Mohan Rao S/o. Pedda Subbarao. 21 Umasankar Rice Traders, Bharthipudi, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Kodali Sambasiva Rao S/o Sivaramakrishnaiah, age:42 years 22 Venkataramana Traders, Chandole, T.V.Palem Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner K.V. S. Prasad S/o Nagabhushanam, age: 40 years. 23 Kollapudi Sai Babu, rep. by Proprietor Sri G.V. Satyanarayana S/o Kuchekludu, age: 30 years, Karlapalem, Guntur District 24 Sri Narayanaswamy Traders, Suryalanka Road, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor D.V. Sesha Rao S/o Velugondaiah, age: 40 years. 25 Madhavi Rice Traders, Barthipudi, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri Achanta Ramesh Babu S/o Sivairamakrishnaiah age:33 yrs. 26 Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Traders, Railpet, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor P.R. Ravindrababu S/o Venkateswara Rao,age: 33 years. 27 Kumara Sankara Rice Traders, Darvadikothapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Chennemsetty Venkaiah S/o Ramanaiah, age:45 years. 28 Sri Balaji Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner G.V. N. Kishore S/o G. Brahmaiah, age: 23 years. 29 Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Y.Venkateswara Rao S/o Butchaiah, age: 42 years. 30 Seeta Ramanjaneya Rice Traders, Bethapudi, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor G. Shankara Rao S/o Mutyam. 31 Sri Venkateswara Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor B.V. Ratna Gupta, S/o Venkatasatyanarayana, age: 47 years. 32 Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders, Narasayapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Tiondepu Koteswara Rao S/o Venkateswarlu, 33 Sri Siddeswara Rice Traders, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner P.V. Satyanarayana S/o Kasaiah, age: 38 years. 34 Sri Venkateswara Rice Working Company, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner K.V. V. Satyanaraya S/o Venkata Subbaiah, age:34 Yrs. 35 Srinivas Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Propeitor N. Srinivasa Rao S/o Koteswara rao, age: 27 years. 36 Sri Venkatramana Rice Mill, Buddam, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner B. Prabhakara Rao S/o.Venkataramaiah, Age: 40 years. 37 Sri Anjaneya Rice Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor V. Srinivasa Rao S/o Nageswara Rao, age: 38 years. 38 Sri Lakshmi Sai Rice Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor. K. Hari Padma Prasad S/o Ankulu, age: 48 years. 39 Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner T. Guru Brahmam S/o Brahmaiah, age: 41 years. 40 Sri Sai Ram Traders, Pittalavanipalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner M. Srinivasa Raju S/o Kotamraju, age: 62 years. 41 Sri Bhagyalakshmi Satyanarayana Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor V. Satyanarayana S/o Pitchaiah, age: 48 years. 42 Sri Sitaramanjaneya Rice Mill & Company, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Y. Venkateswara Rao S/o Ankamma, age: 36 years. 43 Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Mill, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner K. Muralikrishna Murthy S/o Satyanarayana, age: 50 years. 44 Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, Pericherla, Meikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner Chekuri Vedamurthy, S/o Suryanarayana, age: 42 years. 45 Venkatapadmavathi Rice Mill, Vejandla, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District, rep.by its Managing Partner B.Venkata Reddy S/o Rami Reddy, age:42 yrs. 46 Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice & Floor Mill, Chebrolu, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District, rep.by its Managing Partner M.Koti Reddy S/o Appireddy,age:42 yrs. 47 Lakshmi Rice Traders, Sithanagaram, Guntur Town, rep. by its Proprietor M.Suryakumari W/o Venkateswara Rao. 48 Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Rice, Sivareddipalem, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner Chekuri Ramakrishna S/o Suryanarayana, age: 36 years. 49 Janatha Rice & Floor Mill, Nehrunagar, Guntur Town, rep. by its Propeitor Sri K. Kondaiah S/o Sithaiah, age: 50 years. 50 Sri Sakethanadh Rice Mill, Yetukur Road, Guntur Town, rep. by its Partner T. Srinivasababu S/o late Koteswarao, age: 40 years. 51 Subrahmaneswara Swamy Rice Mill, Gujjana Gundla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Vudatha Rajendraparasad S/o Late Narasaiah, age: 39 years. 52 Jaganmohan Rice Mill, Kobalpet, Guntur town, rep. by its Partner Sri K. Mohan Subendra Gupta S/o late Sambasivarao, age: 62 years. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad 2 The Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Depot, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Bapatla, Guntur District 4 The Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Guntur District 5 The Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Commettee Tenali, Guntur District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction, declaring that the action of the first respondent contained in the impugned circular bearing No. Unit-V(1) 349/2002 dated 08-07-2002, directing the agricultural market committees to levy market fees on the rice which is milled out by the petitioners from the paddy which has suffered market fee under the provisions of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents to forbear from levying market fee on the rice (both rice & boiled) which is produced by the petitioners by milling the paddy which has suffered payment of market fee when paddy was produced from the agriculturist and further direct the respondents not to detain the trucks and lorries of the petitioners which are transporting the rice for want of payment of market fee to respondents, when the petitioners have already paid the market fee the paddy from which the rice is milled out grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Mr. POSANI VENKATESWARLU WRIT PETITION NO : 24991 of 2002 Between: 1 Sri Vijaya Traders, Sri Panduranga Rice Mill, Nandyal-518 501, Rep. by Partner Meda Lakshmaiah. 2 Prasad Traders, Allagadda-518 543, Kurnool Dist., rep. by Prop. M.Sankara Prasad. 3 Madisetty Venkata Subbaiah Sons, Allagada, Kurnool Dist., rep bu Partner, M.Srinivasulu. 4 Yerramu Traders, Allagadda, Kurnool Dist., rep. by Prop. Yerram chandra Mohana Reddy. 5 Sri Venkateswara Industries, Kandukur Road, Allagadda, Kurnool Dist., rep by Prop. Devisetty Harish Babu. 6 Devi Traders, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Noonepally, Nandyal(R.S) Kurnool Dist., rep. by Partner Ch. Suresh. 7 Nandeeswara Industry, K.C.Road,Noonpally, Nandyal (R.S), Kurnool Dist., rep by Partner K.Subbarathnam setty. 8 Makbul Modern Rice Mill, S.No.420,Ayyalur Metta, Nandyal, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool Dist., rep by Prop. T.Maqbool Alam. 9 Sri mallikarjuna Industries (Rice Mill), Chennur (P.O), Srivel Mandal, Kurnool Dist., rep by Prop. S.V.Kulcy Reddy. 10 Sri Chandra Traders, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Park Road, Nandyal,rep. by Prop V.Chandramohan. 11 Sri Sai Ram Modern Rice Mill, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Park Road, Nandyal, rep. by Partner D.V.Rusaiah. 12 Sri Vasavi Rice Mill, Nandyal, Kurnool Dist., rep. by Prop. G.Nagisetty. 13 Bala Traders, Batchu Balaiah Sons Rice Mill, 4/424, Nagulakunta Road, Nandyal, rep. by Partner, B.Satyanarayana. 14 Sri Rama Rice Mill, R.S.Road, Near Sanjeevanagar Gate, Nandyal, rep. by Partner G.Venkatasubbaiah. 15 Sri Venkata Hiranmai Industries, R.S.Road, Nandyal, rep. by Partner G.V.S.Sudarsan. 16 Sri Sudhakar Rice Mill Contractors, Paddy & mundy Merchants, Bogguline, Nandyal R.S., rep. by Partner Y.Sugunakumar Setty. 17 Sri Sudhakar Enterprises, Paddy & Pulses, Bogguline, Nandyal R.S., rep. by PartnerY.Suguna Kumar Setty. 18 Chelemella Venugopalaiah Setty, Rice Merchants, Lessees: Sri Sai Baba Rice Mill, 3/28, K.C.Road,Noonepalle, Nandyal, rep. by Prop. Ch. Venugopalaiah Setty. 19 Sree Sivaparvathi Traders, Govinda palle (v), Srivel Mandal, Kurnool Dt., rep. by Prop. M.Siva nagi Reddy. 20 Sri Seetha Ramajaneya Food Grain Traders, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Nandyal, rep by Partner S.Nagender Rao. 21 Sudhani Trading Company, Nandyal, rep by Partner N.Abdul Subhan. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Directorof Marketing, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Nandyal, Kurnool District, rep. by its Secretary. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Allagadda, Kurnool District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to declare the levy and collection of market Fee on Rice as contrary to law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by its judgment reported in A.I.R 1983 SC Page 1246 (Sreenivasa General Traders Vs. State of A.P ) and violate of Section 12 of the A.P (Agricultural Produce and Livestock ) Markets Act, 1966 read with Rule 74 of the A.P (Agricultural Produce and Live stock ) Markets Act, 1966 and interdict the respondents by the issue of any writ, direction or order particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus in the circumstances of the cases declaring circular No.Unit- V(1)349/2002 dated 8.7.2002 issued by respondent No.2 herein as illegal. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4 : MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 2294 of 2003 Between: 1 Sree Vasavi Rice Mill, Railpet, Jambupalem Road, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner Thatavarthi Narayana S/o.Pedanarayana, Age: 60 years. 2 Jayakrishna Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Director, Manam Nageswara Rao. 3 Sri lakshmi Ganapathi Rice Working Co., Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner, K.Venkateswarlu S/o.Punnaiah. 4 Sri Dhanalakshmi Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner, Kollapudi Subba Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu, Age: 64 years. 5 Dhanalakshmi Rice Working Co., Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Kollapudi Subba Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu, Age: 64 years. 6 Sri Ramanjaneya rice Mill, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor P.Ranga Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu, Age: 42 years. 7 Sri Sainadh Rice Mill, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Thatavarthi Malekondrayudu S/o.Pedanarayana, 73 years. 8 Sree Lakshmi Narayana Rice Mill, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Thatavarthi Adinarayana S/o.Venkatanarayana, age: 42 years. 9 Sita Rama Rice Mill, Industrial Estate, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner, T.V.Satyanaranyana S/o.Gurvaiah, Age: 30 years. 10 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Kajipalem, Pittalapalem Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri K.V.Subba Rao S/o.Koteswara Rao, age: 42 years. 11 Vijayalakshmi Rice Mill, Kukkalavaripalem, West Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Govada Satayanarayana S/o.Subba Rao, age: 48 years. 12 Sri jayalakshmi Rice Mill, Industrial Estate, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Thatavarthi Chandranarayana S/o.Pedanarayana, Age: 48 years. 13 Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Bethapudi, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its proprietor P.Venkateswara Rao S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, age: 48 years. 14 Mubarak Rice Mill, Chandole, P.V.Palem Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Abdul hameed S/o.Abdul Kareem, age: 74 years.. 15 Sri manikanta Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner P.Subba Rao S/o.Kotaiah, Age: 41 years. 16 Sri Venugopal Traders, Poondla, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor, Ankata Chenchu Subba Rao S/o.Suryaprakash Rao, Age: 47 years. 17 Kameswari Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Kurra Srinivasa Rao S/o.Brahmaiah, Age: 42 years. 18 Sri lakshmi Balaji Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner G.V.V.Anajaneyulu S/o.Venkatanarasaiah, age: 38 years. 19 Kommineni Radhakrishna Murthy, rep. by Propreitor N.Subba Rao, Vedullapalli, Guntur District. 20 Venkateswara Rice Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner Chinni Mohan Rao S/o.Peda Subba Rao. 21 Umasankar Rice Traders, Bharthipudi, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor, Kodali Sambasiva Rao S/o.Sivaramakrishnaiah, Age:42 yrs. 22 Venkataramana Traders, Chandole, T.V.Palem Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner K.V.S.Prasad S/o.Nagabhushanam, age: 40 years. 23 Kollapudi Sai Babu, rep. by Proprietor Sri G.V.Satyanarayana S/o.Kuchekludi, age: 30 years, Karlapalem, Guntur District. 24 Sri Narayanaswamy Traders, Suryalanka Road, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor D.V.Sesha Rao S/o.Velugondaiah, age: 40 years. 25 Madhavi Rice Traders, Barthipudi, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri Achanta Ramesh Babu S/o.Sivairamakrishnaiah, age:33 yrs. 26 Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Traders, Railpet, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor P.R.Ravindrababu S/o.Venkateswara Rao, age:33 Yrs. 27 Kumara Sankara Rice Traders, Darvadikothapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Chennemsetty Venkaiah S/o.Ramanaiah, age:45 years. 28 Sri Balaji Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner G.V.N.Kishore S/o.G.Brahmaiah, age: 23 years. 29 Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Y.Venkateswara Rao S/o.Butchaiah, age: 42 years. 30 Seeta Ramanjaneya Rice Traders, Bethapudi, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor G.Shankara Rao S/o.Mutyam. 31 Sri Venkateswara Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor B.V.Ratna Gupta S/o.Venkatasatyanarayana, age: 47 years. 32 Sri lakshmi Venkateswara Traders, Narasayapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Tiondepu Koteswara Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu. 33 Sri Siddeswara Rice Traders, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner P.V.Satyanarayana S/o.Kasaiah, age: 38 years. 34 Sri Venkateswara Rice Working Company, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner K.V.V.Satyanarayana S/o.Venkata Subbaiah,age:34 Yrs. 35 Srinivasa Rice Mill, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep.by its proprietor N.Srinivasa Rao S/o.Koteswara Rao, age: 27 years. 36 Sri Venkaramana Rice Mill, Buddam, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner B.Prabhakara Rao S/o.Venkataramaiah, age: 40 years. 37 Sri Anjaneya Rice Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor V.Srinivasa Rao S/o.Nageswara Rao, age: 38 years. 38 Sri Lakshmi Sai Rice Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor K.Hari Padma Prasad S/o.Ankulu, age: 48 years. 39 Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner T.Guru Brahmam S/o.Brahmaiah, age: 41 years. 40 Sri Sai ram Traders, Pittalavanipalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner M.Srinivasa Raju S/o.Kotamraju, age: 62 years. 41 Sri Bhagyalakshmi Satyanarayana Traders, Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor V.Sataynarayana S/o.Pitchaiah, age: 48 years. 42 Sri Sitaramanjaneya Rice Mill & Co., Bapatla, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Y.Ventateswara Rao S/o.Ankamma, age: 36 years. 43 Sri lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Mill, Karlapalem, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner K.Muralikrishna Murthy S/o.Satyanarayana, age: 50 years. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Law and Legislature Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 Agricultural Market Committee, Bapatla, rep. by its Secretary, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the Provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (produce & Live Stock ) Market Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the Market Fee on the Rice Milled from out of Paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & live Stock ) markets Act, 1966. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI WRIT PETITION NO : 12763 of 2003 Between: M/s. Annapurna Traders C/o. Rajya Lakshmi Modern Rice Mills Denduluru - 534 432 W.G. District, rep. by its Managing Partner Mr. K. Satyanarayana AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of AP, BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee Bhimadole, West Godavari District rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice L.No. 129/2002-2003 dated 3-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12853 of 2003 Between: Sri Dhanya Lakshmi Ricing Comp., Prop.Madupalli Mallikharjuna Rao & Co. Prattipadu West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt.of A.P. B.R.K.R., Buildings Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Coimmittee, Tanuku, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary.. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice R.O.C.No.7/2003/SR dated 16-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of seciton 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12872 of 2003 Between: M/s Sri Jayalakshmi Trading Company, Prop.Bonda Sri Krishnavataram Veera Venkata Nageswara Rao & Co., Gundugolanu., Bhimadolu Mandalam West Godavari District rep.by its Partne Bonda Veera Venkata Nageswara Rao. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimadole., West Godavari District rep.by its Secretary. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the .....RESPONDENTS petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice L.No.13/2002- 2003 dated 3-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12873 of 2003 Between: M/s Suveera Traders c/o Suveera Rice Mills, Komadvolu, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District rep.by its Proprietor N.V.S.V.Prasad Rao AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru., West Godavari District., Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice R.O.C.No.351/2002/ dated 23-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra financial year 2002-2003 vide vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS). WRIT PETITION NO : 12953 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Ramana Traders, C/o. Sri Sanathana Venugopala Rice Mill, Turpu Veedhi, Eluru, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner Mr.Nalam Ramakrishna Prasada Rao AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice R.O.C.No.351/2002, dated .5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURLE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12957 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Vasavi Datta Rice Company, Rice Mills Street, Eluru, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. V. Koteswara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru,West Godavari District. Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice R.O.C.No.351/2002, dated 26.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12986 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Raghavendra Tading Company, C/o. Sri Srinivasa Rice Mill, Rice Mills Street, Eluru, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. S.V.S.K. Purnachandra Rao AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondents in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice R.O.C.No. 351/2002, dated 23.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder an set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 12990 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sree Srinivasa Traders,Paddy & Rice Business Rep.by prtnr.Ch.Phanindra Babu, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director Marketing Governmetn of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agriculture Market Committee, Eluru, Rep. by its Secretary, West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice R.O.C.No. 351/2002/ dated 23.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agriculture Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13190 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Sai Siva Traders Paddy & Rice Business, Koadavolu, Eluru Mandalam, West Godavari District, rep. by its Parter Mr. D. Siva Raa Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Govt. of A.P. B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice R.O.C.No. 351/2002/dated 23-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13194 of 2003 Between: M/s Katyayani Traders., Paddy & Rice Business., Tangellamudi,Eluru., West Godavari District rep by its Proprietor., Mrs.Madupalli Yasoda. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru, West Godavari District rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice R.O.C.No.351/2002/dated 23-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh ( Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13313 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sree Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill Bhimadolu, W.G. District rep. by its Partner Mr. G. Pandu Ranga Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of AP,BRKR Building,Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee Bhimadole,West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice L.No.2/2002- 2003 dated 25-3-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, un-authorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13314 of 2003 Between: M/s. Subba Raju Rice Mill, C/o. Kaki Soma Raju Copala Rao & Company Paddy & Rice Business, Kaavaerapukota, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner Mr. Kaki Gopala Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of AP, BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during No.16/SR/2003 dated 3-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 13315 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sree Lakshi Ganapathi Traders, Paddy & Rice Business, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, rep. by its Proprietor Mr. S. Srinivasa Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of AP, BRKR Building, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee Chintalapudi, West Godavari District rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice No.11/SR/2003 dated 3-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 13316 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Lakshmi Traders, Polamuru, Denduluru Mandalam, W.G. District rep. by its Proprietor Mr. G. Pandu Ranga Rao AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of AP, BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimadole, West Godavari District rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice L.No.9/2002-2003 dated 3-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13317 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sai Srinivasa Traders, Paddy & Rice Business, Jalipudi, Eluru Mandalam, C/o. Bhavani Modern Rice Mill, Tangellamudi, Eluru, W.G. District rep. by its Partner, Mr.Puli Gopala Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of AP, BRKR Building, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru,West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice R.O.C. No.351/2002 dated 23-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS). WRIT PETITION NO : 13466 of 2003 Between: M/s Sri Bhaskar Lakshmi Traders, c/o Sri Lakshmi Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Near Perugusetty., Eluru West Godavari District rep.by its Proprietor K.Bhaskar Gurnatha Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing., Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru, West Godavari District, rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice R.O.C.No.351/2002 dated 23-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13467 of 2003 Between: M/s Rameshwarlal & Co.Ltd K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem.,W.G.Dist., rep.by its Director Pavan Kumar Gupta. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing., Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Tadepalligudem., West Godavari District, Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.F.No.Nil dated nil as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultravires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh( Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13468 of 2003 Between: M/s Sri Kalyani Agro Products & Industri Ltd., Prathipadu., Pentapadu Mandalam, West Godavari District rep.by its Managing Director V.Narayana Rao AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing., Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee Tanuku, West Godavari District, rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice R.O.C.No.7/2003/SR dated 16-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultravires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13469 of 2003 Between: M/s Sri Lakshmi Kanyaka Rice Mill, Bhimadolu, West Godavari District rep.by its Proprietor K.Mohan Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimadole., West Godavari District., Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice L.No.2/2002- 2003 dated 22-2-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised,ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Poduce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 13470 of 2003 Between: M/s Sri Siddeswara Traders, (prop.P.Kasaiah) Bypass road (Puntha Road) Tadepalligudem., West Godavari District rep.by its partner Peruri Kasaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing., Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.F.No.3/SR- IV/2002-2003 dated 27-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13471 of 2003 Between: M/s Sri Veera Venkata Ramana Boiled & Raw Rice Mill., Prathipadu., West Godavari District rep.by its Managing Partner P.Lakshman Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee Tanuku., West Godavari District Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during R.O.C.No.7/2003/SR dated 16-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13472 of 2003 Between: M/s Sri Lakshmi Enterprises c/o Sri Sai Lakshmi Rice Mill D.No.36-1-1/NH 5, Eluru road., Tadepalligudem., West Godavari District rep.by its Partner K.S.Narsimha Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee Tadeppalligudem., West Godavari District, rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice M.F.No.SRIII/A/6/202-203 dated 15-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13889 of 2003 Between: Sesharatna Rice Mills, rep.by its Managing partner, Palakol-534260, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt.of A.P.,B.R.K.R.Buidings,Hyderabad. 2 The agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.F.No.8/SR.2002-2003 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and live stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13921 of 2003 Between: M/s Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice Mill, Canal Road., JINNUR via Palakol., West Godavari District., rep.by its Managing Partner Mr.G.Janardhana Gupta. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing Govt.of Andhra Pradesh., B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District, rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No.195/02, dated 9-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13990 of 2003 Between: M/s.Jupiter Trading Corporation, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.B.Narasimha Rao, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, Rep.by its Secsretary, West Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during M.F.No.9/SR/8/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agrl.produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14002 of 2003 Between: M/s.Lakshmi Venkataramana Rice Mill, rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.G.Janardhana Gupta, Penumandam - 534 273, (via) Palakol, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, rep.by its Secretary, Achanta, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No.195/02 dated 9-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14003 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Ganesh Trading Company, rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.Bh.Achuta Rama Raju, Palakol -534 260, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice M.F.No.6/SR/8/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and setaside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14004 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Lokeswari Rice Mill, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.Bangaru Manikyam, Penumadam Road, Palakol -534 260, W.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during M.F.No.7/SR/8/2002-2003 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14005 of 2003 Between: M/s.Loknath & Co., Rep.by its Partner Mr.M.Nageswara Rao, Ullamparru - 534 265, (Via) Palakol, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No.195/02 dated 9-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14006 of 2003 Between: M/s.Bhupathiraju Ramachandra Raju Rice Mill, rep.by its Partner, Mr.B.Achuta Rama Raju, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice M.F.No.5/SR/8/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultravires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14007 of 2003 Between: M/s. Addepalli Suryaramchandra Rao & Co., Ullamparru-534 265, (Via) Pakakol, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner Mr. A. Sree Rama Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to .....RESPONDENT(S) issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No. 195/02 dated 9-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14151 of 2003 Between: M/s. Lakshmi Ganapathi Rice Mill, Bhaggeswaram - 534251, (Via) Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner Mr.S. Ganapathi Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F.No. 9A/SR(W)/2002-03 dated 7.6.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed there under and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14152 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sadguru Traders, Ullamparru - 534 265, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner Mr.P.M. Prasad Varma. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No. 195/02 dated 10.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14153 of 2003 Between: M/s. Vegesina Ranga Raju & Co., P.P. Road, Poolapalli - 534261, (Via) Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner Mr. Vegesina Ranga Raju ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agrciultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F. No. 6A/SR(W)/2002-03, dated 7.6.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14154 of 2003 Between: M/s. Vijayalakshmi Rice Mill, Narsapur Road, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr. Bangaru Ramprasad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F. No. 2A/SR(W)/2002-03, dated 7.6.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14155 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Jagannadha Surya Lakshmi Rice Mill, Ullamparru - 534 265, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner Mr.P.Jagannadha Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No. 195/02 dated 9.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed there under and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14156 of 2003 Between: M/s. Balaji Rice Mill, Mattaparru - 534 265, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner Mr.P. Dharma Raju ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No. 195/02 dated 9.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14157 of 2003 Between: M/s. Akena Brahmaiah & Co., Ullamparru - 534 265, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner Mr. Akkena Brahmaiah. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No. 195/02 dated 9.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14158 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Satyalakshmi Rice Mill, Vedangi - 534 265, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner Mr.P. Ramachandra Raju. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No. 195/02 dated 9.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14159 of 2003 Between: M/s. Ranga Raju Rice Mill, P.P. Road, Poolapalli - 534261, (Via) Palakol, West Godavari District., Rep. by its Partner Mr. Vegesna Ranga Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F. No.5A/SR(W)/2002-03, dated 7.6.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed there under and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14160 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Jayalakshmi Venkata Narasimha Rice Mill, Poolapalli - 534 261, (Via) Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner, Mr.J. Gandhi Babu ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F. No.8A/SR(W)/2002-03, dated 7.6.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14161 of 2003 Between: M/s. Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill, Ullamparru - 534 265, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.P. Srirama Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District. Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No. 195/02 dated 9.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14311 of 2003 Between: M/s. Kancharla Purushotham Gupta & Company, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. K.Purushotham Gupta. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Marketing Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.F.L.F.No. 22A/SR/W/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1956 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14312 of 2003 Between: M/s. Satyasai Rice Traders, Achanta - 534 123,West Godavari District Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. Ch. Rama Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC.No. 195/02 dated 9-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14313 of 2003 Between: M/s. Meenakshi Trading Company, Vedangi - 534 265, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of AP., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F.No. 11/SR/S/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14314 of 2003 Between: Talluri Srinivasulu, Cont. Sri Venkateswara Raw Rice Mill, S.W.C. Godowns, P.P. Road, Bhimavaram - 534 203, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Governmentt of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice MF.No. 8/SR- IV/2003 dated 26-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14315 of 2003 Between: M/s. Surya Kamala Rice Mill, Palakol-534 260, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. Bh. Viswanadha Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P. B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F.No. 3/SR(S)/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14316 of 2003 Between: M/s. Godavari Trading Company, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. Bh. Viswanadha Raju. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of A.P. B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F.No. 4/SR(S)/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14317 of 2003 Between: M/s. Vijayalakshmi Narasimha Rice Mill, Nagarjunpeta, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. Bolla Veeraswamy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F.No. 1A/SR(W)/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14318 of 2003 Between: M/s. Kancharla Purushotham Gupta, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. K. Purushotham Gupta. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F.No. 3/SR/N/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14319 of 2003 Between: M/s. Vijayalakshmi Trading Corporation, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. B. Ramprasad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to .....RESPONDENTS issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F.No. 3A/SR(W)/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14320 of 2003 Between: M/s. Jayalakshmi Rice Mill, Srungavruksham - 534 243, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Kancherla Srinath. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F.No. 25/SR-I/2002/2003 dated 28-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14519 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Venkata Ramana Rice Stores, Near Police Statue, Bhimavaram-534 201 West Godavari District, rep. by its Proprietor Mr. K. Venkata Subbaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice MF No. 14/SR-II/2002/2003 dated 28-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14525 of 2003 Between: M/s. Ravi & Co., Palakol, W.G. District rep. by its Partner Mr. K. Kanaka Narasimham ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice M.FL.F. No. 4A/SR(W)/2002/2003 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14541 of 2003 Between: M/s. Prasad Rice Stores, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram - 534 201, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Narlapati Venkata Prasad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice MF No. 44/SR-II/2002/2003 dated 28-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultravires of Section12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14562 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Venkata Krishna Rice Traders, (Cont.Sri Ramakrishna Rice & Flour Mill) Bhimavaram-534 201, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.J.Satyam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Direcstor of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice MF No.9/SR- II/2002/2003 dated 28-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and setaside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14564 of 2003 Between: M/s.Annapurna Sri Venkata Ramana Rice Traders, (Cont.Sri Jayalakshmi Rice Mill), Bhimavaram -534 202,West Godavari District, rep.by its Managing Partner Somisetti Rama Koti Satya Prasad. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice MFPN No.25/SR-IV/2003 dated 26-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural) Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14568 of 2003 Between: Smt.Paruchuri Sri Lakshmi, (Cont.)Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Door No.7-7-45(1), Kumudavalli Road, Bhimavaram -534 201, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direcstion, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice No.26/SR-IV/2003 dated 26-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical,unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14569 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Srinivasa Rice Mill, Rest House Road, Bhimavaram -534 201, West Godavari Dist., Rep.by its Proprietor, Mr.Innamuri Srinivasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Direcstor of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice MFPB No.15/SR-IV/2003 dated 26-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14718 of 2003 Between: M/s. Govind and Co., (Contrs.) Sree Venkateswara Rice Mill, 5-9/3-12A, Taylorpet, Narasapuram-534 275, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner Mr. Achanta Govind. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Narasapuram, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No. 4/MF/2002-2003 dated 5.6.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14719 of 2003 Between: M/s. Suryanarayana Traders, Adavipalem West Godavari District, rep. by its Proprietor Mr. B. Suryanarayana Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Narasapuram, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice No.13/MF/2002-03 dated 7.6.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14720 of 2003 Between: M/s. Vijayasree Foods (Cont: Sri Venkateswara Raw & Boiled Rice Mill) Malleswaram -534 330, peravali Mandal, West Godavari District, rep. by its Managing Partner Mr. M.K.V. Rami Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Penugonda, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No. 3/SR/2002-03 dated 26.6.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14721 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Medapadu, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Proprietor, Mr.Oduri Krishna Murthy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Narasapuram, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during No.18/MF/2002-2003 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14722 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Sairam Rice Trading, Palakol -534 260, West Godavari Dist., Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.M.S.R.Venkateswara Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Show Cause Notice M.FL.C.No.2/N/03 dated 30-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14723 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sree Ramabhadra Modern Rice Mill, Tetali -534 218, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Partner Mr.P.Ramakrishna Gopala Raju. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku,West Godavari District, Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice R.O.C.No.7/2003/SR dated 16-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14724 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Ramalingeswara Rice & Oil Mills, Velpur -534 222, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District, rep.by its Partner Mr.Banda Ramachandra Rao. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Rep.by its Secretary, Tanuku, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice R.O.C.No.7/2003/SR dated 16-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the financial year 2002-2003 vide same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14725 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Venkatrama Modern Rice Mill, Iragavaram -534 217, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Partner, Mr.D.V.S.Prakasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Penugonda, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice ROC No.1/SR/2002-2003 dated 26-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14910 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sankara Traders, Ajjamuru, Akividu - 534 235, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Partner Mr.I.Subramanyam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice No.26/B/A/2002, dated 9-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14911 of 2003 Between: M/s.Chunduri Venkata Rao Voleti Venkata Narayana & Co. Cont.of Ramakrishna Modern Rice Mill, West Railway Gate Road, Akividu-534 235, W.G.Dist., Rep.by its partner Mr.Ch.Venkat Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agrl.Market Committee, Akividu, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice No.26/B/A/2002 dated 9-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 14912 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sree Dhyryalakshmi Rice Mill, Akividu -534 235, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.K.Pardasarathi. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice No.26/B/A/2002 dated 9-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 14913 of 2003 Between: M/s.Ramanjaneya Par Boiling Plant & Modern Rice Mill, Cherukuwada - 534 199, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.P.Ramanjaneyulu. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice No.85/B/2003 dated 10-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14914 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Lakshmi Ganesh Raghava Traders, Akividu -534 235, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Partner N.S.A.V.V.R.N.S.Satyanarayana. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice No.26/B/A/2002 dated 9-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14915 of 2003 Between: M/s.Srinivasa Rice Mill, Aibhimavaram Road, Akividu -534 235, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Partner Mr.Ch.V.Satyanarayana. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing. Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during No.26/B/A/2002 dated 9-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14916 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Venkataramana Rice Mill, Pedakapavaram -534 366, West Godavari Dist., Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.M.Krishna Murthy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice No.26/B/A/2002 dated 9-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14917 of 2003 Between: M/s.Peruri Venkateswarlu & Company Cont.Sri Venkata Padmavathi Rice Mill, Akividu-534 235 West Godavari District, Rep.by its Partner Mr.P.Venkateswarlu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, Rep.by its Secretary, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during No.26/B/A/2002 dated 9-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14919 of 2003 Between: Rajyalakshmi Modern Rice Mill, Akividu-534235, rep.by its Mang.Partner. Akividu-534235 West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R.Buildings Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, rep.by its Secretary West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice No.26/B/A/2002 dated 9-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural produce and live stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14920 of 2003 Between: M/s Sri Venkata Laxmi Siva Sai Rice Mill Aibhimavaram Road., Akividu., West Godavari District, rep.by its Partner I.Ch.Venkateswarlu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Government of Andhra Pradesh., B.R.K.R.Buildings., Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu., West Godavari District., Rep.by its Secretary. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the .....RESPONDENTS petitioners during impugned Notice No.26/B/A/2002 dated 9-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15112 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Venkata Lakshmi Rice Stores, Cont.Sri Murali Krishna Modern Rice Mill, Bhimavaram - 534 202, W.G. District, rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Narlapati Venkata Narasimha Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice MFLP No.18/SR-II/2002/2003 dated 26-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15120 of 2003 Between: 1 Mr.B.Ramagopala Reddy, S/o Seshi Reddy, Partner, M/s. Sri Sesha Bhagyalakshmi Rice Mill, Prakasam District. 2 Mr. Y. Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Siddiah, Proprietor, M/s. Mallikarjuna Rice Mill, Ongole, Prakasam District 3 M/s. Sri Venkateswara Rice & Dall Mill, rep. by its Partner Mr. Jilla Venkateswarlu, S/o. Seshaiah, Ongole, Prakasam District 4 M/s. Sri Padma Agros, rep. by Mr. Bonala Krishna Reddy,S/o Venkateswara Reddy S.N. Padu (Mandal), Prakasam Dist. 5 M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, rep. by its Partner Mr. D.V. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Jayarami Reddy, H. Nidamanur, Prakasam District 6 M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. G. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Venkatanarasaiah, Ongole, Prakasam District 7 M/s. Sri Sai Traders, rep. by its Proprietor Mr.P.Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Venkatasubbaiah, Ongole, Prakasam District 8 M/s. Srinivasa Rice & Flour Mill, rep. by its Proprietor Mr. N. Venkateswara Gupta, S/o Venkatasubba Rao, Koppolu, Prakasam District 9 M/s. Motumarri Nageswara Rao, Proprietor Mr. Moturi Nageswara Rao,S/o. Anjaneyulu, Uppugundur, Prakasam District 10 M/s. Sri Ganesh Raw & Bolid Rice Mill, rep. by its partner Mr. C. Krishna Reddy, S/o.Pitchi Reddy, Permamitta, Prakasam District 11 M/s. Saptagiri Boiled & Raw Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner Mr. D. Srinivas, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Permamitta, Prakasam District 12 M/s. Sri Venkateswara Trading Company, rep. by its Partner Mr. G. Subba Rao, S/o. G. Sheshaiah, Uppugundur, Prakasam District 13 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivas Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor Mr. K.V. Subba Rao, S/o. Padnabhaiah, Ongole, Prakasam District 14 M/s. Venkateswara Rice Mill, rep. by Mr. G. Rambabu, S/o. Koteswara Rao Ongole, Prakasam District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Agricultural, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Ongole, Prakasam District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned circular bearing No. Unit V(1)349/2002 dated 8- 7-2002 issued by the 1st respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of all cannons of law and provisions of the AP (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and consequently quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15407 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sree Seetharam Modern Raw & Par Boiled Rice Mill, Prathipadu -534 146, West Godavari Dist.,Rep.by its Managing Partner Mr.Kovvuri Gandhi. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P.,B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice R.O.C.No.7/2003/SR dated 16-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15408 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Trading Company, Palakol -534 260, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.Siddireddi Appa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P.,.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District. Represented by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during impugned Notice M.FL.F.No.4/SR/N/2002-03 dated 7-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15409 of 2003 Between: M/s.Kurmala Narayana Rao & Co., (Cont.Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Modern Rice Mill), Srungavruksham,West Godavari District, Rep.by its Partner Mr.K.Narayana Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice MF No.11/SR- I/2002/2003 dated 28-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15410 of 2003 Between: M/s.Vijaya Bhaskara Traders, (Cont.Rajendra Rice Mill), Appanavidu Junction -521 105, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Partner, G.Jagadeeswara Rao. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice R.O.C.No.SR II 2003 dated 23-5-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15411 of 2003 Between: M/s.Nirmala Rice Mill, Kunchanapalli -534 101, Tadepalligudem, Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Malladi Kaniki Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during No.SRIII/A/16/2002-2003 dated 6-3-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15412 of 2003 Between: M/s.Perumalla Harinadh Modern Rice Mill, Saripalle P.O., Ganapavaram – 634 198, West Godavari District, Rep.by its Managing Partner Mr.Perumalla Harinadh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Attili, West Godavari District, Represented by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during R.O.C.No.14/MF/2002-2003 dated 11-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same. financial year 2002-2003 vide Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15413 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Saibaba Traders Venkatapuram, Eluru Mandalam, West Godavari District, rep by its Managing Parter, Chalasani Anjaneya Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru, West Godavari District, rep by its Secretary. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring .....RESPONDENTS financial year 2002-2003 vide the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the impugned Notice petitioners during R.O.C.No.351/2002 dated 23.5.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorized, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15414 of 2003 Between: M/s. Kurmala Naga Venkata Satyanaraya Murthy Alias Naga Raju & Co. (Cont. Sri Veera Venkata SatyanarayaRice Mill) Srungavruksham, West Godavari Ditrict, Rep by its Parter Mr. Nagar Venakata Satyanarayana Murthy (Alias) Naga Raju ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Government of A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned notice MF No.SR- I/2002/2003 dated 28-6-2003 as arbitrary, Whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of the Andhrap Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed the thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15415 of 2003 Between: M/s. Kurmala Venkata Rama Mohan Rao & Co, (Cont. Sri Veera Venkata Satyanaraya Raw & Boiled Rice Mill), Srungavruksham West Godavari District, rep by its partner Mr. K. Venkata Rama Mohan Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimvaram, West Godavari District, rep by its secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying maket fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned notice MF No. SR- I/2002/2003 dated 28-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of he A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15416 of 2003 Between: M/S Sri Venkata Rama Rice Mill, Alamuram - 534 146, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District, rep by its Proprietor Mr. Putta Venkaatramanna ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku, West Godavari District, rep by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in levying maket fee on the sales effected by the petitioners during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned notice ROC No. 7/2003/SR dated 16-6-2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultra vires of Section 12 of he A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and contrary to the Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same as such. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15530 of 2003 Between: Bandaru Division Raw and Boiled Rice Millers Welfare Association, Regd.No.527/1995, Machilipatnam - 2, Krishna District, rep. by its President, Sri S. Krishnaji Rao, S/o. Raghava Vara Prasad, R/o. Machilipatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretary to Government, (Food and Agricultural) Marketing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Marketing Committee, Machilipatnam, rep. by its Secretary, Krishna District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that ' Rice ' is not ' notified agricultural produce' within the meaning of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stocks) Markets Act, 1966 and the Collection of market fee from Rice Miller sellers in respect of the rice sold to their party purchasers without notice, enquiry and on the basis of circular of second respondent Unit No.V (1) 349/2002 dated 8-7-2002 by misuse of check-posts for the said purpose is illegal and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : MRS.NANDA R. RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 15793 of 2003 Between: Sri Lakshmi Ganesh Raghava Traders, Akividu-534 235, West Godavari District rep. by its Partner, Mr. N.S.A.V.V.N. Satyanarayana ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Food and Agricultural (Marketing) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS). WRIT PETITION NO : 15817 of 2003 Between: 1 Sree Ramachandra Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Managing Partner K. Venkateswarlu S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District 2 Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Rice Corporation, Nereducharla, Cont: Sri Venkateswara Parboiled Modern Rice and G.N. Oil Mill, rep. by Partner T. Janakiram Reddy, S /o. Lachi Reddy, R/o. Nereducharla 3 Vijaya Sai Rice Industries, Nereducharla, rep. by Partner R. Anjaiah S/o. Anthaiah R/o. Nereducharla 4 Sri Sai Ramana Rice Corporation, Dirshincharla Village, rep. by partner K. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy R/o. Dirshincharla Village, Nalgonda District 5 Venkata Sai Rice Corporation, Nereducharla, rep. by Proprietor, R. Sravan, S/o.Anjaiah R/o. Nereducharla 6 Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, Nereducharla, rep. by Partner V. Satyanarayana S/o. Saidaiah, R/o. Nereducharla 7 Mallikarjuna Super Foods, Commission & General Merchants, Nereducharla, rep. by Proprietor P. Easwaraiah S/o. Ramulu, R/o. Nereducharla 8 Sri Raghavendra Swamy Food Grain Commission & General Merchants, Nereducharla, rep. by Proprietor A. Satyanarayana, S/o. Mallaiah R/o. Nereducharla 9 Sri Sai Traders & General Merchants, Nereducharla, rep. by Proprietor P. Srinivas, S/o. Ramulu R/o. Nereducharla 10 Annapurna Rice Corporation, Narsaiahgudem, rep. by Partner, B. Anjaiah S/o. Lingaiah, R/o. Narsaiahgudem Village, Nereducharla 11 Yadagiri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Enterprises, Conts: Yadagiri Laxmi Narasimhaswamy Boiled Rice & Dall Mills, Huzurnagar, rep. by Partner G. Apparao, S/o. Krishnaiah R/o. Huzurnagar. 12 Sri Alamelu Manga Sametha Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Managing Partner G. Vidyasagar, S/o. Krishnaiah, R/o. Huzurnagar 13 Sri Seetha Ramanjaneya Parboiled Modern Rice & Groundnut Oil Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Partner K. Papi Reddy, S/o. Narayanreddy R/o. Huzurnagar 14 Sri Laxmi Ganapathi P.B.M.R.M., Huzurnagar, rep. by Partner G. Krishna Murthy, S/o. Kotaiah R/o. Huzurnagar 15 M/s. Chaitanya Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by partner K. Rangarao S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Huzurnagar 16 Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Parboiled Modern Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Managing Partner S. Satyanarayana, S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Huzurnagar 17 Sri Venkatramana Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Partner P. Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, R/o. Huzurnagar 18 Balaji Corporation, Huzurnagar, rep. by Partner, J. Satyanarayana, S/o. Apparao, R/o. Huzurnagar 19 Sri Someswara Trading Company, Huzurnagar, rep. by Partner K. Somaiah S/o. Satyanarayan, R/o. Huzurnagar 20 Sri Sai Ramana Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Managing Partner K. Anil, S/o. Rammohanrao, R/o. Huzurnagar 21 Sri Sai Baba Parboiled Rice Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Partner, E. Prabhakar, S/o. Ramakrishna, R/o. Huzurnagar 22 M/s. Sri Bhuvaneswari Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, Huzunagar, rep. by Partner, P. Narsimhareddy S/o. Venkat Reddy R/o. Huzurnagar 23 Sai Srinivasa Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Partner P. Narsimhareddy S/o. Venkat Reddy, R/o. Huzurnagar 24 Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Managing Partner, G. Prabhakar, S/o. Narahari, R/o. Huzurnagar 25 Sri Gurunadha Swamy Rice Industries, Huzurnagar, rep. by Managing Partner, N. Yadagiri S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Huzurnagar. 26 Sri Lakshmi Ganapati Enterprises, Huzurnagar, rep. by Managing Partner, Challa Laxmaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Huzurnagar 27 Sri Venkateswara Rice Industries, Madhavarayanigudem, Huzurnagar rep. by Partner K. Sudhakar, S/o. Venkatanarsaiah, R/o. Huzurnagar 28 Radha Krishna Trading Corporation, Huzurnagar, Conts: Gowrishankar Raw-Boiled Rice and G.N. Oil Mill, Huzurnagar, rep. by Partner V. Narasimharao, S/o. Sri Naadraiah R/o. Huzurnagar AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretarit, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of AP, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to (i) to declare that Rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item-2 of schedule-II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock Market Act, 1966) is bad in law and ultravires section 2(1) of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the respondents at the checkposts or any either place, demanding and collecting market fee as from the petitioner is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and ultravires Section 12 of the Act by issuing any appropriate writ, direction or order. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15850 of 2003 Between:

2. Sri Vijaya Traders, Sri Panduranga Rice Mill, Nagulakunta Road, Nandyal, rep. by its Partner Meda Lakshmaiah S/o.Venkatasubbaiah, Age: 53 years, R/o.Nandyal, Jurnool District. Prasad Traders, Allagadda, rep. by its Proprietor M.Sankara Prasad, S/o.M.C.Subbarayudu, age: 54 years, R/o.Allagadda, Kurnool District.

3. Madisetty Venkata Subbaiah Sons, Allagadda, rep. by its Partner M.Srinivasulu S/o.M.Venkatasubbaiah, Age: 40 years, R/o.Allagadda, Kurnool District.

4. Yerram Traders, Allagadda, rep. by its Proprietor Yerram Chandra Mohana Reddy S/o.Yerram Papireddy, Age:33 years, R/o.Allagadda, Kurnool District.

5. Sri Venkateswara Industries, Kandukur Road, Allagadda, rep. by its Proprietor Devisetty Harish Babu S/o.Devisetty Subramanyam, Age:34 years, R/o.Allagadda, Kurnool District.

6. Sri Rama Rice Mill, R.S.Road, Nandyal, rep. by its Partner G.Venkatasubbaiah S/o.;Subbarayudu, Age: 50 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

7. Sri Venkata Hiranmai Industries, R.S.Road, Nandyal, rep. by its partner G.V.S.Sudarshan S/o.Venkatanagisetty, Age: 37 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

8. Sri Sudhakar Rice Mill Contractors, Paddy & Mundy Merchants, Bogguline, Nandyal, rep. by its Partner Y.Sugunakumar Setty, S/o.Y.Sriramulu Setty, Age: 52 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

10. Sri Sudhakar Enterprises, Paddy & Pulses, Bogguline, Nandyal, rep. by its Partner Y.Suguna Kumar Setty S/o.Y.Sriramulu Setty, Age: 52 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District. Devi Traders, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Noonepally, Nandyal, rep. by its partner Ch.Suresh S/o.Venugopalaiah Setty, Age: 25 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

11. Chelemella Venugopalaiah Setty, Rice Merchants, Lessees: Sri Sai Baba Rice Mill, Noonepalle, Nandyal, rep. by its Proprietor Ch.Venugopalaiah Setty S/o.Anthaiah, Age: 56 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

12. Sri Vasavi Rice Mill, Nandyal, rep. by its Proprietor G.Nagisetty, S/o.G.Venkatasubbaiah, Age: 55 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

13. Sri Sai Ram Modern Rice Mill, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Nandyal, rep. by its Partner D.V.R.P.Rao S/o.D.V.Rusaiah, Age: 38 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

14. Sri Chandra Traders, Paddy & Rice Merchants, nandyal, rep. by its Proprietor V.Chandramohan S/o.V.Subramanyam, Age: 31 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

15. Sri Seetha Ramanjaneya Food Grain Traders, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Nandyal, rep. by its Partner S.Nagender Rao S/o.Ramsubbaiah, Age: 32 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

16. Bala Traders, Batchu Balaiah Sons Rice Mill, Nandyal, rep. by its Partner B.Satyanarayana S/o.Balaiah, Age: 53 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

17. Nandeeswara Industry, Nandyal, rep. by its Partner K.Subbarao S/o.Subbaratnam Setty, Age: 52 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

18. Makbul Modern Rice Mill, Nandyal, rep. by its proprietor T.Maqbool Alam S/;o.Abdul Rasool,Age:58 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

19. Subhani Trading Company, Nandyal, rep. by its partner A.Abdul Subhan S/o.Jaffarshib, Age: 50 years, R/o.Nandyal, Kurnool District.

20. Sri Mallikarjuna Industries (Rice Mill), Chennur, rep. by its proprietor S.V.Kulcy Reddy S/o.Ramachandra Reddy, Age: 38 years, R/o.Chennur, Kurnool District.

21. Sree Sivaparvathi Traders, Govindapalle village, Sirvel Mandal, rep. by its proprietor M.Siva Nagi Reddy S/o.M.V.Reddy, age: 69 years, R/o.Govindapalle, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND

3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. The Agricultural Market Committee, Nandyal, Kurnool District, rep. by its Secretary.

4. The Agricultural Market Committee, Allagadda, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased (1) to declare that Rice is not an Agricultural produce and therefore item-2 of Schedule-II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 is bad in law and ultravires Section 2(1) of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the checkposts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and ultravires Section 12 of the Act by issuing any appropriate Writ, direction or order appropriate in the circumstances and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15984 of 2003 Between: 1 Raghavendra Rice&Dall Mill, Kucipudi rep. by Mg.Partner,P.Venkata Rambabu S/o.Venkatasubba Rao R/o. Kuchipudi, Amarthalur Mandal, Guntur District. 2 Sobha Par Boiled Rice Mill, Sultanabad, Tenali, rep. by partner GMK Manohar, S/o.G.Sambasiva Rao 3 Sri Lakshmi Murali Mohan Rice & Flour Mill, Cherukupalli,Guntur District, rep. by Partner A.Satyanarayana S/o.Venkateswarlu 4 Parvathi Parameswara Rice Mill, Cherukupalli,Guntur District, rep. by Prop.Nerella Kasi S/o. Nagabhrahmam 5 Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill,Cherukupalli rep. by Managing Partner K.Sampath Babu S/o. Ramakrishnayya 6 Manikantha Rice Working Company, Kuchipudy, rep. by Prop. Ravella Dasaradha Ramaiah S/o.Venkata Subbaiah 7 Sri Mathrusri Rice & Flour Mill, Thuruma rep. by Partner N.Siva Rama Prasad Gupta S/o. Venkata Subbarao 8 Vijaya Rice Working Company, Tenali Guntur Dist. rep. by Partner M.PrasadRao S/o. Lakshmi Narayana R/o.Tenali 9 Sridevi Traders, Tenali rep. by Partner M.Srinivasa rao, S/o.Prasad. 10 Shirdi Sai Traders, Vemuru , rep. by Partner T.Siva Kumar, S/o. Gurunadham. 11 Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Rice Mill, Cont. Konijeti Siva Subbarao &Co., Vemuru, rep. by Partner B.Gopalakrishna Murty S/o.Venkateswarlu, 12 Sri Anjaeya Rice Mill Cont.Sri Datta Sai Rice Working Co.,Vemuru, rep. by Managing Partner T.Balaiah S/o.Venkatasubba Rao. 13 Lakshmi Annapurna Traders, Vemuru rep. by Partner, T.Koteswara Rao S/o.Subbarao. 14 Saibaba Rice Working Company, Vemuru rep. by Partner, Movva Saibabu S/o.Satyanarayana. 15 Manikantha Rice Working Company, Vemuru, rep. by Partner, G.Murali Krishna S/o. Satyanarayana 16 Muralikrishna Traders,Vemuru rep. by Prop.T.Venkata Subbaiah S/o.Subbaiah. 17 Suryanarayana Rice Mill, Vemuru, rep. by Proprietor T.Siva Kumar, S/o. Deva Varma Rao. 18 Nageswara Rice Working Company, Kolluru, Guntur District rep. by Mg.Partner P.Ramachandra Rao S/o. Veeraraghavulu. 19 Ganesh Mill, Tenali rep. by Managing Partner P.Suri babu. 20 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill,Chinaparmi Tsundur Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by Partner M.Venkata Basivi Reddy S/o.Venkata Reddy. 21 Annapurna Rice Mill, Chinaparimi rep. by Managing Partner, A.Rajeev Reddy S/o. Subba Reddy 22 Janatha Rice Mill, Tenali, rep. by Managing Partner, D.Jayanathi Kumar S/o. Sambasiva Rao 23 Vijayalakshmi Boiled Rice Mill, Tenali rep. by Partner T.Srinivasa Rao S/o. Narayana Murthy. 24 Ratna Rice Mill, Tenali rep. by Partner M.Subba Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu 25 Radhakrishna Rice Working Co.,Tenali rep by Proprietor V.Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Seshagiri Guptha. 26 Mahalakshmi Rice Working Co.,Tenali rep. by Managing Partner D.Srinivasa Rao S/o. Sambasiva Rao 27 Sri Adilakshmi Kameswari Rice Mill, Tenali rep. by Managing Partner N.Satyanaayana, S/o. Nagabhushanam. 28 Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice &Flour Mill, Tenali, rep.by Partner B.Chandra Sekhar S/o. Sivaramayya 29 Sri Lakshmi Narayana Rice & Flour Mill, Tenali, rep.by Managing Partner M.Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Subrahmanyam, 30 Sri Sitharamanjaneya Rice Mill, Tenali rep. by Partner G.Kasi Viswanadham S/o. Venkateswarlu. 31 Sai Manideep Rice Working Co.,Tenali rep. by Proprietor T.Satyanarayana S/o.Mallikharjuna Rao. 32 Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Rice&Cotton Mill, Tenali, rep. by partner T.Mallikharjuna Rao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao 33 Radhakrishna Rice&Dall Mill, Tenali rep. by Proprietor N.Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Nagabhushanam 34 Mahalakshmi Rice Traders,Tenali, rep.by Partner, K.Yagneswara Rao, S/o. Sitharamaiah. 35 Sri Balanjaneya Rice Working Co.,Tenali rep.by Proprietor K.Brahmanandam S/o. Ramadasu. 36 Sri LakshmiNarasimha Rice Mill, Tenali rep. by Proprietor K.Suryanarayana, S/o. Koteswara Rao. 37 Lalitha Maheswara Rice Mill, Intutu Amarthalur Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by Managing Partner M.Venkateswara Rao S/o. Nagabhushana Rao. 38 Sri Venkata Ramana Rice Mill,Inturu, rep. by Partner Ch.Naveen, S/o. Sitharamaswamy. 39 Brundavan Rice Mill, Angalakuduru Tenali Mandal, rep. by Proprietor I.Koteswara Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana. 40 Sri Lakshmi Satyanarayana Rice&Oil Mill Conts. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice Working Co., Morrispet, Tenali rep. by Partner P.Venkateswara Rao S/o. Nageswara Rao. 41 Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill, Conts. K.V.Ramana Kumari& Co., Tenali, rep. by Partner K.V.Ramana Kumar S/o. Nageswara Rao. 42 Sri Subhodaya Rice& Flour Mill, Conts, Sri Venkateswara Rice Working Co., Tenali, rep. by Managing Partner K.Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Rathaiah. 43 Sri Sambasiva Rice Mill, Tenali rep. by Proprietor T.Dhanunjaya Rao S/o. T.Sambasiva Rao. 44 Venkata Rama Sai Rice Working Company, Tenali, Rep. by Proprietor I.Ranganayakulu S/o. Venkatanarasaiah. 45 Vighneswara Rice Working Company, Tenali, rep.by Managing Partner N.Venkateswarlu, S/o. Balaiah. 46 Ramachandra Rice Working & Co., Tenali, rep. by Proprietor T.Sambasiva Rao S/o. Kistaiah. 47 Sree Lakshmi Satyanarayana Rice & Flour Mill, Tenali, rep. by Managing Partner K.Harihara Prasada Rao, S/o. Subbarao 48 Lakshmi Rice Working Company, Angalakuduru , Tenali Mandal rep. by Managing Partner A.Jagadish S/o. Ramesh Babu. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Food&Agriculture (Marketing) Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Tenali, Guntur Dist, rep. by Secretary 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Duggirala, Guntur Dist, rep.by Secretary 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Repalle,Guntur District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to (1) to declare that Rice is not an "Agricultural Produce" and therefore item 2 of Schedule II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, is bad in law and ultravires S.2(1) of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the Respondents at the Check Posts or any other places, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the Petitioners, is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and ultravires Section 12 of the Act, by issuing any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction appropriate to in the Circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15988 of 2003 Between: 1 Sri Ramachandra Vara Prasad Rice Mill Co Nidubrolu,Guntur District, rep. by Patner G.V.Krishnaiah, S/o.Venkatasubbaiah. 2 Sri venkata Rama Rice Mill, Nidubrolu Guntur District rep. by Partner, B.V.Chowdary, S/o. Subbarao. 3 Sri Durga Rice Mill Company, Nidubrolu rep. by Managing Partner B.V.Chowdary. 4 Sri Ravi Vara Prasad Rice Working Co., Nidubrolu, rep. by Managing Partner A.Vara Prasada Rao, S/o.Koteswara rAo 5 Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Rice Mill, Nidubrolu rep. by Managing Partner K.Sanjeeva Varaprasad S/o. Sambasiva Rao. 6 Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill, Nidubrolu, rep. by Managing Partner, K.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Rama Rao. 7 Sri Venkateswara General Traders, Nidubrolu, rep. by Managing Partner K.Sambasiva Rao S/o. Rama Rao. 8 Puvvada Nageswara Rao, Nidubrolu rep. by Managing Partner Puvvada Nageswara Rao S/o. Subba Rao. 9 Sri Kanaka Durga Traders, Nidubrolu rep. by Managing Partner V.Giribabu S/o. Ramakrsihna. 10 Sri Bhagya Lakshmi Rice Mill Nidubrolu rep. by Managing Partner D.Ghanandam S/o. Yesubu. 11 Tejaswy Seva Sangam, Aluru Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District, rep.by Secretary P.Manidhar S/o. Nageswara Rao. 12 Sri Sai Ram Traders, Nidubrolu rep.by Managing Partner Ch.Chandrasekhara Rao S/o. Raghavaiah 13 Sri Nagalakshmi Rice Mill,Nidubrolu, rep. by Managing Partner K.Subba Rao S/o. Radhakrishnamurthy 14 Sri Balaji Trading Company,Nidubrolu, rep. by Managing Partner M.Nageswara Rao S/o.Chenchu Subba Rao 15 M.S.R.Rice Industries, Kasukarru, rep.by Managing Partner M.Rama Krishna Rao S/o. Sree Ramulu 16 Sri Raghavendra Rice Mill, Kasukarru, rep. by Managing Partner M.Seshagiri Rao S/o.Venkataramanaiah 17 Neelisetty Rice Industries, Kasukarru rep. by Managing Partner N.Satyanarayana S/o.Guravaiah 18 C.S.R.Rice Industries, Chintalapudi rep. by Managing Partner,Ch.Subba rao, S/o. Rattaiah. 19 Balaji Par Boiled & Raw Rice Mill, Chintalapudi, rep.by Managing Partner K.Venkateswara Rao, S/o. K.Subbarao. 20 Sri Venkateswara Traders, Machavaram, rep. by Managing Partner, Ch.Madharao, S/o. Satyanarayana. 21 Sri Durga Traders, Mulukuduru, rrep. by Proprietor M.Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu. 22 Sri Annapurna Rice Traders,Nanduru rep. by Managing Partner A.Nageswara Rao S/o. A.Satyanarayana 23 Sri Venkata Satya Sai Traders, Ponnur rep. by Managing Partner G.Siva Satyanarayana S/o.Puttaiah 24 Sri Lakshmi Sujata Traders, Ponnur, rep. by Proprietor A.Anjaneyulu, S/o. A.Sambasiva Rao. 25 Sita Rama Rice Mill, Munipalle, rep. by Managing Partner, V.Satyasai Babu S/o.V.Chowdaramma. 26 Sri Dhana Laksmi Rice Traders, Kasukarru rep. by Managing Partner K.Hanumatha Rao S/o. K.Rama Kotaiah 27 Si Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Rice Mill, Ponnur (M)Guntur Dist. rep.by Managing Partner K.Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao. 28 Sri Rama Chandra Rice Industries, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District, rep.by Proprietor V.Subba Rao S/o. Dasaiah. 29 Sri Satyanarayana Traders, Kattempudi rep. by Managing Partner K.Satyanarayana S/o. Venkata Rao 30 Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice Millo, Kattempudi, rep. by Managing Partner A.Sambasova Rao S/o. Venkata Subbaiah. 31 Sri Sitaramanjaneya Raw Rice & Boiled Mill, P.T.Parru, Ponnur Mandal, rep. by Managing Partner N.V.Subba rao S/o. Nagabushanam 32 Sri Sai Traders, Vellaluru, rep. by Managing Partner, A.Raghava Reddy S/o. Veera Reddy. 33 Sri Devi Rice Mill, Vellaluru, rep. by Managing Partner, K.Venkata Ramana S/o. K.Nagendra Rao. 34 Sri Srinivasa Rice Mill, Thottempudi rep. by Managing Partner A.Purnachandra Reddy S/o. A.Koti Reddy. 35 Sri Radha Swamy Rice Mill, Inturu, rep by Managing Partner, A.Venkateswarlu S/o. Kotaiah. 36 Sri Rama Rice Mill, Chinalingaya Palem rep. by Proprietor K.Venkateswarlu S/o. Raghunadha Rao. 37 Sri Dhanalakshmi Cotton&Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd.Ganapavaram(V) Nadendla(M) Guntur District, rep. by its Director S.Hanumatharao, S/o .Gopalaswamy. 38 Narayana Swamy Boiled Industries, Boppudi Village, rep. by its Proprietor, P.Venkateswarlu S/o. Chinna Narasaiah. 39 Sri Lakshmi Siva Jyothi Rice Mill, Chilakaluripet, rep. by Proprietor, K.Venkateswarlu S/o. Kotaiah. 40 Sri Lakshminarayana Modern Rice Mill, Chilakaluripet, rep. by its Managing Partner, K.Nageswara Rao S/o. Kotaiah. 41 Mallikarjuna Rice Working Company, Chilakaluripet,rep.by its Proprietor, V.Ramanjaneyulu S/o. Pitchaiah. 42 Tirumala Rice Company, Pasumarru rep. by its Proprietor,B.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Kasiah. 43 Sri Raghavendra Rice Mill,Chilakaluripet rep. by its Managing Partner A.Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkataswamy. 44 Sri Saikrishna Seva Sangham Mini Rice Mill, Pasumarru, rep. by its President, R.Sambasiva Rao S/o. Venkateswarlu. 45 Venkateswara Rice Working Company, Chilakaluripet, rep. by its Proprietor, R.Venkateswarlu, S/o. Satyanarayana 46 Sankar Trading Company,Chilakaluripet rep. by its Proprietor, N.Sankaranarayana, S/o.Ranganayakulu. 47 Radha Krishna Rice Working Company,. Chilakaluripet, rep. by its Proprietor, K.Radhak Krishna Murthy. 48 Venkata Bhagyalakshmi Rice Producers, Chilakaluripet, rep. by its Proprietor, R.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Ramaiah. 49 Sarada Rice Working Company, Chilakaluripet, rep. by its Proprietor, Y.Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana. 50 Radha Krishna Rice & Flour Mill Chilakaluripet, rep.by its Managing Partner, Shaik Abdl Muneef, S/o. John Peerusaheb. 51 Sri Tulasi Rice Mill, Ganapavaram rep. by Proprietor, A.Chimeraiah, S/o.Veeraiah. 52 Venkata Vijaya Sai Hi-tech Rice & Floor Mill, Ganapavaram, rep. by its Managing Partner, Sd.Kheeleel, S/o. Basheer. 53 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Mellempudi rep. by its Managing Partner, T.V.Koteswara Rao, S/o. V.Guravaiah. 54 Sri Dhanalakshmi Rice Mill, Noothakki Mangalagiri (M) rep. by its Managing Partner, M.Sankara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu. 55 Jaya Lakshmi Traders, Noothakki Jayalakshmi Mangalagiri Mandal, rep.by its Managing Partner, D.Koteswara Rao S/o. Nagabhushanam. 56 Sri Lakshmi Traders, Pedavadlapudi Mangalagiri Mandal, rep. by its Managing Partner T.Raghava Rao S/o. Sambasiva Rao. 57 Sri Venkataramana Rice Working Company Pedavadlapudi, rep. by its Managing Partner, K.Radhakrishnamurthy, S/o.Venkateswara Rao. 58 Avvari Giri Mohana Rao S/o. Kotiratnam, Mangalagiri . 59 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Mangalagiri, rep. by its Proprietor, Jakka Naga Venkata Gopala Rao, S/o. Venkataratnam. 60 V.R.Modern Rice Mill, Tadepalli Guntur Dt. rep. by its Manager B.Sai Sivareddy S/o. Kuttumbareddy 61 Sankar Rice & Flour Mill, Mangalagiri rep. by its Proprietor, D.Mabu, S/o.Dilari. 62 Durga Vasavi Rice Mill, Pedavadlapudi rep. by its Managing Partner, V.V.R.Anjaneyulu, S/o. Narasimharao 63 Sumans Rice & Bio Technologies Pvt. Ltd Ponnur, rep. by K.Madhava Rao, S/o. Kotaiah ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Food & Agriclture(Marketing) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur,Guntur Dist.,rep.by its Secretary 4 The Agricultural Market Committee Mangalagiri, Guntur Dist. rep. by its Secretary 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to (1) to declare that Rice is not an"Agricultural Produce" and therefore item 2 of Schedule II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, is bad in law and ultravires S.2(1) of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the Respondents at the Check Posts or any other places, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the Petitioners, is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and ultravires Section 12 of the Act by issuing any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction appropriate to in the Circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 5 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16019 of 2003 Between: 1 Sri Lakshmi Par Boiled Rice Mill, Tenali rep. by its Proprietor, G. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Umamaheswara Rao, aged 59 years. 2 Manikantha Modern Rice Mill, Tenali, rep by its Managing Partner D.R.K. Murthy, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, age 49 years. 3 Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Working Co., Tenali, rep. by its Proprietor, K. Satyanarayana Gupta, S/o. K.V. Mohan Rao, age 28 years. 4 Sri Vijayalakshmi Rice Working Co., Ananthavaram, Kolluru Mandal, rep. by its Partner G. Sri Sai Hareram, S/o. Satyanarayana, age 38 years. 5 Vijaya Lakshmi Rice Moll, Chandalawada, rep. by its Partner G. Radhakrishan Murthy, S/o. Venkata Subbarao, age 54 years. 6 Sri Venkateswara Rice & Flour Mill, Munnangivaripalem, Guntur, rep. by its Managing Partner E. Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, age 47 years. 7 Sita Ramanjaneya Rice Mill, Nadigaddapalem Guntur District, rep. by K. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, age 33 years. 8 Sri Lakshmi Durga Rice Mill, Conts, Jayasri Rice Working Co., Chinaparimi, rep. by its Managing Partner D. Brahma Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, age 42 years. 9 Sampurna Parvathi Rice Mill, Kuchipudi, rep. by its Prop. Y. Ramamohan Rao, S/o. Peda Lingaiah, age 49 years. 10 Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Arunbaka, Cherukupalli, rep. by its Partner A. Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkateswarlu, age 51 years. 11 Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill, Ponnapalli, rep. by its Partner B. Uday Kiran, S/o. Kanaka Lingeswara Rao, age 24 years. 12 Sri Sai Ram Rice Mill, Prathipadu, rep. by its Partner K. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, age 30 years. 13 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Multur, rep. by its Proprietor, G. Subba Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, age 60 years. 14 Sri Venkataramana Rice & Flour Mill, Vatticherukuru, rep. by its Proprietor, P. Ramana Rao, S/o. Ankamma, age 46 years. 15 Venkata Padmavathi Rice Mill, Vejendla, rep. by its Partner T. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, age 59 years. 16 Sree Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice & Flour Mill, Chebroulu, rep. by its Managing Partner,T. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, age 59 years. 17 Hari Traders, Chebrolu, rep. by its Proprietor, P. Haribabu, S/o. Subbarao, 18 Sri Sitharamanjaneya Rice Mill, Chebrolu, rep. by its Proprietor, S. Kalyanachakravarthi, S/o. Sivaprasad, age 27 years. 19 Sri Dhana Lakshmi Rice & Flour Mill, Chrbrolu, rep. by its Proprietor, E. Nageswara Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, age 45 years. 20 Sri Gayatri Rice Traders, Marakoduru, rep. by its Managing Partner J. Somaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, age 67 years. 21 Nageswara Rice Working Co., Repalle, rep. by its Partner A.V. Satyanarayana, S/o. Purna Koteswara Rao, age 32 years. 22 Sri Lakshmi Satyanarayana Rice Working Co., Repalle, rep. by its Managing Partner, B.V. Subrahmanyam, S/o. Balakoteswararao, age 44 years. 23 Vishnupriya Rice Working Company, Isukapalli, Repalle, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner, S. Pardhasaradhi, S/o. S. Gurnadharao, age 38 years. 24 Sri Bhavani Rice Working Co., Kammavaripalem, Nalluripalem (PO) Repalle (M) Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor, K. Venkateswarrao, S/o.Krishnarao, Age 48 years. 25 Sri Padmalaya Rice Mill,Vuyyuriparipalem Bethapudi (PO), Repalle Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner V. Ramamohana Rao, S/o. Radhakrishnamurthy, age 49 years. 26 Sri Raghavendra Rice Working Co., Repalle, rep. by its Managing Partner, S. Prabhakararao, S/o. Jagannadharao, age 46 years. 27 Sree Radhakrishna Rice Mill, Conts. Padmavathi Rice Working Co., Repalle, rep. by its Managing Partner V. Lakshmi V. Rao, S/o. Samudraiah, age 83 years. 28 Sri Durga Rice Working Co., Conts. Sri Lakshmi Durga Rice Working Co., Repalle, rep. by Mg. Partner V. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Radhakrishnamurthy, age 43 years. 29 Vijaya Durga Rice Working Company, Repalle, rep. by its Managing Partner K.V.N. Rao, S/o. Subbarao, age 53 years. 30 Sri Vasavi Rice Working Company, Repalle, rep. by its Managing Partner T.S. Rao, S/o. V.V. Purnachandrarao, age 44 years. 31 Sri Ravindra Rice Working Co., Repalle, rep. by Partner S. Veeranjaneyulu, S/o. Venkata Subbarao, age 43 years. 32 Raghavendra Rice Working Company, Bethapudi, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner K. Pamidath S/o. Ramakrishnarao, age 55 years. 33 Venkateswara Traders, Bhathipudi, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner V.H. Das, S/o. Venkateswarlu, age 70 years. 34 Sri Suryanarayana Rice Mill, Bhattiprolu rep. by Prop. M.V. Suryanarayana, S/o. M. Prasadrao, age 32 years. 35 Sri Vijaya Durga Sai Rice Working Company, Gudavalli, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Y.M. Rao, S/o. Nagabhushanam, age 57 years. 36 Vighneswara Traders, Pedapulivarru, rep. by its Managing Partner K.V. Radhakrishnamurthy, S/o. Venkataratnam, age 40 years. 37 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Repalle, rep. by its Managing Partner B. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, age 52 years. 38 Vijaya Lakshmi Rice Working Company, Repalle Mandal, Peteru, Guntur District, rep.by its Managing Partner,Urimi Venkatasubbarao S/o. Viswanadham, age 55 years. 39 Sri Raghavendra Rice Industries, Vuyyuruvaripalem, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Prop. Leganta Prabhakara Rao, S/o. Venkatramaiah age 42 years. 40 Sree Ranganadha Rice Working Co., Repalle, rep. by its Managing Partner B. Sri Ramachandrarao, S/o. Gopalakrishnaiah, age 74 years. 41 Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Rice Mill, Kanagala, rep. by its Managing Partner, G. Balasitarama Rao, S/o. Subbarao, age 44 years. 42 P.M.R. Traders, Nagaram, rep. by its Managing Partner, G. Srinivasarao, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, age 42 years. 43 Sri Venkateswara Rice Working Company, Gallvaripalem, rep. by its Partner, B.K.R.H. Prasad, S/o. Venkateswarlu, age 40 years. 44 Sri Nageswara Rice & Flour Mill, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor, K. Anjaiah, S/o. Peda Ankayya, age 75 years. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Tenali, Guntur District, rep. by its Secretary 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Repalle, Guntur District, rep. by its Secretary 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Duggirala, Repalle, Guntur District, rep. by its Secretary 6 The Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, Guntur district, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to (1) to declare that Rice is not an Agricultural produce and therefore Item-2 of schedule-II of the A.P. (Agricultural produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 is bad in law and a Itravires Section 2(1) of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise abstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the Checkposts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and ultravires section 12 of the Act by issuing writ of Mandamus, direction or order appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 6 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16074 of 2003 Between: 1 Sri Krishna Modern Rice & Groundnut Oil Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner, S. Venunath, S/o. Lachaiah. 2 Nagarjuna Paraboiled Modern Rice & G.N. Oil Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Managing Partner R. Lingaiah, S/o. Ramaiah. 3 Sri Jyothi Trading Co., Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner M. Rajender, S/o. Viswanadham. 4 Sri Devi Para Boiled Modern Rice & G.N. Oil Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner, Jaini Murali Mohan, S/o. Prem Chandra Mohan. 5 Bhagyalaxmi Rice Corp., Miryalguda, rep. by Partner M. Srinu, S/o. Shenkaraiah. 6 Sri Venkataram-ana Boiled Rice & G.N. Oil Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Managing Partner R. Laxmikantham, S/o. Ramaiah. 7 Vishnu Para Boiled Modern Rice & G.N. Oil Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Y. Laxmaiah, S/o. Ramaiah. 8 Sri Shaliverdhana Para Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner V. Prasad, S/o. Saidaiah. 9 Mahavishnu Rice Corporation, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner B. Satyanarayana, S/o. Narayana. 10 Maha Ganapathi Rice Corp., Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner V. Goverdhan, S/o. Jagannadham. 11 Sri Laxmi Modern Rice Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by Partner E. Laxmaiah, S/o. Venkaiah. 12 Raghavendra Rice Corp., Miryalguda, rep. by Partner Ch.Narender, S/o. Ch. Rammurthy. 13 Sri Venkateswara Para Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner, R.G. Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Lingaiah. 14 Vaidhehi Rice Corp., Miryalguda, rep. by Partner M. Yadagiri, S/o. S/o. Chandraiah. 15 Sai Ramana Rice Industry, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner P. Narasimha Rao, S/o. Ramakotaiah. 16 Maruthi Commercial Corp., Miryalguda, rep. by its Proprietor, K. Maruthi, S/o, Rammurthy. 17 Navajyothis Para Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by G. Malla Reddy, S/o. Yadireddy. 18 Satyanarayana Para Boiled Modern Rice Mill & G.N. Oil Oil Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner G. Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkatramaiah. 19 Miryalaguda Rice Industry (P) Ltd., Miryalguda, rep. by its Managing Director,Ranga Ranjith Kumar, S/o. Kondaiah. 20 Keerthi Traders, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner,Repala Purushotham, S/o. Sheshaiah. 21 Sai Prashanth Rice Corp., Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner P.Ramanna, S/o. Janardhan. 22 Mallikarjuna Rice Corp., Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner P. Prakash, S/o. Venkaiah. 23 Maheshwari Para Boiled, Mu-kundapuram, rep. by its Partner Golla Ramesh, S/o. Chennaiah. 24 Sri Sai Ram Rice Corp., Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Konduru Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Veeraiah. 25 Kamadhenu Rice Mills (P) Ltd., Sethipalem, Miryalaguda, rep. by its Director Sadu Gurumurthy, S/o. Venkaiah. 26 Sri Rama Krishna Rice Industries, Gudur, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Karnati Ramesh, S/o. Lingaiah. 27 Sri Venkateshwara Binni Modern Rice Mill, Gudur, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Karnati Ramesh, S/o. Lingaiah. 28 Om Sri Sai Traders, Miryalguda, rep. by Partner, Cheedalla Prasad, S/o. Omkaram. 29 Shivashankar Traders, Miryalguda,rep. by Partner R. Sreedhar, S/o. Kondaiah. 30 M/s. Nandini Traders, Miryalguda, rep.by Partner G. Harinath, S/o. Mallaiah, 31 Kanakamahalaxmi Rice Industries, Sethipalem, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Chellam Charla Madhusudhan, S/o. Balanarasaiah. 32 Sai Jayalaxmi Rice Industry, Miryalguda, rep. by Partner Gooru Shenkar, S/o. Laxmipathi. 33 Bharani Rice Mills(P) Ltd., VT Palem, Miryalguda, rep.by its Partner Chellamcherla Sagar, S/o. Bala Narsaiah. 34 M/s. Neelakanta Rice Corporation, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Yanagandla Lingaiah, S/o. Satyam. 35 Sri Balaji Para Boiled Rice Mills(P) Ltd Yadgarpalli, Miryalguda,rep. by its DirectorYanagandla Lingaiah, S/o. Satyam. 36 Shiva Rama Krishna Rice Industries (P) Ltd., Gudur, rep. by its Director, Kalam Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, R/o. Miryalguda. 37 Sri Venugopala Rice & Oil Mill, Miryalguda, rep.by its Proprietor, Ranga Srinivasu, S/o. Kondaiah. 38 Sai Krupa Rice Corporation, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Raini Srinivas, S/o. Janaki Ramaiah. 39 Venkateshwara Rice Corporation, Miryalguda,rep. by its Proprietor, Raini Venkatesh warlu, S/o. Janikiramaiah. 40 Sri Laxmi Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Satyanarayanapuram, Miryalguda, rep. by Partner Podicheti Ramulu, S/o. Peddaiah. 41 Sri Raghuram Rice Industries, Nidmanoor (Satyanarayanapuram), rep. by its Partner Podicheti Ramulu, S/o. Peddaiah. 42 Shiva Rice Industries, Yadgarpalli, Miryalguda,rep.by its Partner Shiva Srinivas, S/o. Krishnamurthy. 43 Sri Rukmini Krishna Para Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Managing Partner Chillamcharla Srinivas, S/o. Lingaiah. 44 Thirumala Srinivasa Commercial Corporation, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner, Uppala Srikanth, S/o. Ramamurthy. 45 Raghavendra Rice Industries, V.T.Palem, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Kandagatla Srihari, S/o. Balaramaiah. 46 M/s. Vasavi Rice Industries, Vemulapalli (Mandal), rep. by its Partner Golla Ashok, S/o. Purushotham. 47 Maheswari Para Boiled Rice Mill, Settipalem, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Challa Krishna, S/o. Manikyam. 48 Aravinda Para Boiled Modern Rice Mill, (near) Marketyar, Miryalguda, rep. by its Managing Partner Soma Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Naga Mallaiah. 49 Sri Shiva Sai Rice Corporation, Tripuram (Mandal), rep. by its Partner Burugu Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Yellaiah. 50 Kalyani Rice Industries,Tripuram(Mandal) rep. by its Partner Voruganti Umashankar, S/o. Pedabadraiah. 51 Maruthi Traders, Miryalguda, rep. by its Proprietor, Gudipati Anitha, W/o. Srinivas. 52 M/s. Mahaveer Traders, Miryalguda, rep. by Partner Gattu Balaraju, S/o. Sathaiar. 53 Santhosh Rice Industries, Settipalem, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Gouru Ramamurthy, S/o. Narayana. 54 Mahendra Rice Industries, Settipalem, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Manchukonda Rambabu, S/o. Mallaiah. 55 Maheteja Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd.,Settipalem Miryalguda, rep. by its Director Manchukonda Rambabu, S/o. Mallaiah. 56 Uma Maheshwari Rice Corporation, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Gunda Krishnaiah, S/o. Ramachandraiah. 57 Om Sai Traders, Shabunagar,Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner Raini Satyanarayana, S/o. Saidaiah. 58 Sri Laxmi Ganapathi Trading Company, Miryalguda,rep. by its Partner Venna Venkata Ram Mohan Rao, S/o. Chanchaiah. 59 Jayalaxmi Paraboiled Modern Rice Mill, Miryalguda,rep. by its Partner Cheedalla Satyanarayana, S/o. Kistaiah. 60 Sri Balaji Rice Corporation, Tallagadda, Miryalguda,rep. by its Partner Vempati Ramamurthy, S/o. Ratnaiah. 61 Nagarjuna Industries, Miryalguda,rep. by Partner Rayapudi Ramamurthy, S/o. Vasu. 62 Vijayakirshna Para Boiled Modern Rice Mill, Miryalguda, rep. by its Partner T. Madan Mohan, S/o. Satyanarayana. 63 Sai Srinivasa Rice Industries, Miryalguda,rep.by its Partner Repala Yadagiri, S/o. Seetaramulu. 64 M/s.Sri Kanaka Mahalaxmi Rice Industries Ibrahimpet, rep. by its Partner Koppolu Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Raghava Rao. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary F & A (Marketing) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Miryalguda, rep.by its Secretary. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Nidamanuru, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to (1) to declare that Rice is not an Agricultural produce and therefore item-2 of Schedule-II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore in accordance with Section 2 (1) of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the Checkposts or any other place, emanding and collecting Market Fee from the Petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing any appropriate Writ, direction or order appropriate in the circumstances. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4: MRS.NANDA R. RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 16076 of 2003 Between: 1 Sri Srinivasa Rice Mill. Conts. Ch. S.V. Satyanarayana Murthy West Kandrika, E.g. District, rep. by Managing Partner, Ch. S.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Subbarao, R/o. West Kandrika. 2 Sri Venkateswara Rice Industry,Mandapeta rep. by its Partner Ganni Satyanarayana, S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Mandapeta. 3 Sree Ramalakshmi Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Conts. Gunnam Satyanarayan Vedurumudi, rep. by its Managing Partner, Gunnam Satyanarayana S/o. Kamaiah, R/o. Vedurumudi, East Godavari District. 4 M/s. Mutyala Ramachandra Rao & Othes, Const. Venkateswara Sree Rama Dhanvanari Rice Mill, Chintaluru, Rep. by its Managing Partner, M. Ramachandra Rao, S/o. Ramakrishnarao, R/o.Chintaluru. 5 Sri Murali Krishna Traders, Const. Sri Murali Krishna Rice Mill, Pedapalla, rep. by its Managing Partner, Vamtipalli Krishnamurthy S/o. Papayya, R/o. Pedapalla, East Godavari District. 6 Sri Satyakrishna Modern Rice Mill, Gummileru, rep. by its Managing Partner Vaitla Kanakadurga Rao, S/o. Venkatravu, R/o.Gummileru. 7 M/s. Kalyani Modern Rice Mill, Conts. Vegulla Jogeswara Rao & Others Mandapeta, rep. by its Partner I. Satyanarayana S/o. Krishnamurthy R/o. Mandapeta, East Godavari District. 8 Sri Annapurna Rice Mill, Mandapeta, rep. by its Managing Partner R.Rambabu, S/o. Tirupati Subbarayudu R/o. Mandapeta. 9 Sri Sitha Rama Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, Mandapeta, rep. by its Partner Reddi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana s/o. Viswanadham R/o. Mandapeta. 10 Adilaxmi Industries, Vetlapalem, rep. by its Managing Partner M. Satyaprasad, S/o. M. Adinarayana R/o. Vetlapalem. 11 Sri Lalitha Enterprises, Peddapuram, rep by its Manaigng Partner M. Satyaprasad, S/o. M. Adinarayana, R/o. Peddapuram. 12 Sree Murali Mohana Boiled & Raw Rice Mill Plrivate Limited, Komaripalem, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Ch. Panduranga Reddy S/o. Ch. Veera Ragha Reddy R/o. Komaripalem. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, F & A (Mktg.)Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Alamuru, E.G. District, rep. by its Secretary. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Kariampudi, E.G. District, rep. by its Secretary. 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Kakinada, E.G. District, rep. by its Secretary. 6 The Agricultural Market Committee, Ramachandrapuram, E.G. District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to (1) to declare that Rice is not an "Agricultural Produce" and therefore item 2 of Schedule II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, and therefore not in accordance with 2(1) of the Act and (2) to declare that stiopping or otherwsie obstructing the movement of Rice by the Respondnts at the Check Posts or any other places, demanding and collecting market Fee from the Petitioners, is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act, by issuing any appriopriate Writ, Order or Direction approipriate to in the Circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 :G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 to 6 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16137 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s.Sri Bhuvaneswari Rice Corporation, Kommarabanda, Kodad, Nalgonda District, rep.by its Managing Partner Mr.Challa Saidaiah. 2 M/s.Sri Laxmi Venkataramana Parboiled Rice Industries, Bojjagudem, Kodad -508 206 Nalgonda District, rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.T.Venkateswara Rao. 3 M/s.J.V.Rama Rao, (a partnership firm), Kodad - 508 206 rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr.J.Venkata Rama Rao. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Govt.of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Food & Agrl.(Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Govt.of A.P., Rep.by its Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Marketing, Govt.of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Kodad, Nalgonda District, Rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 16297 of 2003 Between:

1. M/s.Sai Ram Enterprises, Contractor: Hanuman Binny Modern Rice Mill, Kolumunthal Pahad, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, rep. by its proprietor Alampally Ramulu S/o.Papaiah, Age: 45 years.

2. Sri Venkateshwara Paddy Boiled and Modern Rice Mill, Gummadavelly 508257, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, rep. by its proprietor Alampally Ramulu S/o.Papaiah, Age: 45 years. ..... PETITIONERS AND

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, F and A (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. The Agricultural Market Committee, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased (1) to declare that Rice is not an Agricultural produce and therefore item-2 of Schedule- II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the checkposts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction or order appropriate in the circumstances and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 16496 of 2003 Between:

1. M/s.Rajendar Rice Industries, Nidamanoor, rep. by its partner Gunda Krishnaiah S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 42 years, R/o.Nidamanoor, Nalgonda District.

2. Sri Shirdi Sai Rice Corporation, Nidamanoor, rep. by its Partner E.Narender S/o.Ramaiah, Age: 42 years, R/o.Nidamanoor.

3. Sri Venkataramana Industries, Haliya, Nalgonda District, rep. by its partner Garlapaty Mattapally S/o.Butchaiah, Age: 34 years, R/o.Haliya.

4. M/s.Aravinda Binny Rice Mill, Haliya, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Partner Garlapati Madhu S/o.Dhane Mallaiah, Age: 30 years, R/o.Haliya.

5. M/s.Harikrishna Rice Industries, Nidamanoor, Nalgonda District, rep. by its partner Karnati Karunakar S/o.Krishnamurthy, Age: 26 years, R/o.Nidamanoor.

6. Mahashakthi Rice Traders, Miryalguda, VT Palem, Nalgonda District, rep. by its partner Paddathi Veeraiah S/o.Kanakaiah, Age: 40 years, R/o.Miryalguda. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, F and A (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. The Agricultural Market Committee, Nidamanoor, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Secretary.

4. The Agricultural Market Committee, Haliya, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Secretary.

5. The Agricultural Market Committee, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased (1) to declare that Rice is not an Agricultural produce and therefore item-2 of Schedule- II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the checkposts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction or order appropriate in the circumstances and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 5: Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 16629 of 2003 Between: Sri Radha Krishna Rice Mill, Narasimhapuram-534202 Bhimavaram Mandal West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing Government of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram,West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent in levying market fee on the sales affected by the petitioner during the financial year 2002-03 vide impugned notice No.3/ MF/ISRIII/2002-03 dated 29-7-03 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultravires of section 12 of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and contrary to Rules framed thereunder and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16638 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Surya Prabha Trading Company, Bhimavaram - 534 201, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner Mr.M. Venkata Ranga Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of A.P., BRKR Buidlings, Hyderabad 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the 2nd Respondent in levying market fee on the sales affected by the Petitioner during the financial year 2002-2003 vide impugned Notice No.LF/5/SRIII/2002-03, dated 23.7.2003 as arbitrary, whimsical, unauthorised, ultravires of Section 12 of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and contrary to Rules framed there under and set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17298 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s.Sree Rama Bhadra Modern Rice Mill, Tetali - 534 218, Tanuku Mandal,West Godavari District rep.by its partner Mr.P.R.K.Gopala Raju. 2 M/s.Sri Ramalingeswara Rice & Oil Mills, Velpur - 534 222, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District rep.by its Partner Mr.B.Govind. 3 M/s.Srimannarayana Agencies, Relangi - 534 217, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District rep.by its Partner Mr.S.Durga Rao. 4 M/s.Sri Gopal & Co. Chivatam Village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District rep.by its Partner Mr.Y.Narasimha Rao. 5 M/s.Sri Venkateswara Modern Boiled & Raw Rice Mill, Vupadallapalem - 534 134 Attili Mandal, West Godavari District rep.by its Partner Mr.K.Dharma Rao. 6 M/s.Sri Gudimetla Sundarami Reddy & Co., Mallipudi - 534 124, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District rep.by its Partner Mr.G.Ramakrishna. 7 M/s.Vijayasree Foods, Malleswaram - 534 330 West Godavari District rep.by its Partner Mr.M.K.V.Rami Reddy. 8 M/s.Sri Venkatrama Modern Rice Mill, Irgavaram - 534 217 West Godavari District rep.by its Partner Mr.A.R.Bhasker Rao. 9 M/s.Jayasree Foods, Penugonda - 534 320 West Godavari District rep.by its Partner Mr.M.S.Reddy. 10 M/s.Ramakrishna Foods, Penumentra - 534 124, West Godavari District rep.by its Partner Mr.N.V.N.M.Balaji. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Food & Agrl. (Marketing) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Marketing, Govt.of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Tanuku, West Godavari District, rep.by its Secretary. 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Penugonda, West Godavari District. rep.by its Secretary. 6 The Agricultural Market Committee, Attili, West Godavari District , rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural Produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 6 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 17314 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s. Sree Venkata Satya Jayalakshmi Par Boiled Unit Bhyravapatnam- 521345, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District rep. by its Managing Partner I. Venkata Rama Raju 2 M/s. Kamakshi Sree Lakshmi traders, ATAPAKA, Kaikalur Mandal, Krishna District rep. by its Proprietor Ch. Satyanrarayana Rao. 3 M/s. Lakshmi Balaji Traders, Cont: Sri Lakshmi Venkata Sai Rice Mill, Bhyravapatnam, Krishna District rep by its Managing Partner K. Ramachandra Rao 4 M/s. Sri Satyavathi Raw & Boiled Rice Mill Cont; V.S. Rao, M.V. R.K. Raju & Co, Kaikalur-521 333, Krishna District rep. by its Managing Partner S.V. Krishnam Raju 5 M/s. Sree Dhairya lakshmi Modern Rice Mill, Main Road, Chavalipadu-521 333, Mandvalli Mandal, Krishna Distirct rep. by its Managing Partner, P. Sesha Rao 6 M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, Conts: Sri Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi Rice Mill, Bhyravapatnam-521 345, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District rep. by its Managing Partner J. Ganga Rao 7 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Traders, Conts: Sri Vijayalakshmi Rice Mill Gopavaram, Kakalur Mandal, Krishna District rep by its Managing Partner J. Ganga Rao. 8 M/s. Sree Veeranjaneya Traders Kaikalur--521 33, Krishna District Krishna District rep by its Proprietor J. Sri Ramachandra Murthy 9 M/s. Sri Satyanarayana Rice Traders, Cont: Sri Sita Rama araw 7 Boiled Rice Mill Mandavalli 521 345, Krishna District 10 M/s Sri Satyanarayana Rice Traders, Mandavalli, Krishna District rep by its Managing Partner G.Venkataramana. 11 M/s. Sri lakshmi Srinivasa Traders, Cont: Venkata Seetaramanjaneya Rice Mill Lokkumudi, Mandavalli Mandal Krishna District rep by its Managing Director. 12 M/s. Venkatakrishna Rice Mill, Singapuram- 521 340, Kaikalur Mandal Krishna District rep by its Managing Partner G.T.N.R. Ramachandra Rao 13 M/s. Srinivasa Modern Rice Mills, Korukollu-521 343, Kalidindi Mandal Krishna Ristrict rep by its Managing Partner G. Sri Rama Raju AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Secretary Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Dept., Secrtariat, Hyderabad 2 The Goverenmnet of Anhdra Pradesh rep by its Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 4 The Agricultural Market committee, Kaikalur, Krishna District rep by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, it necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultureal produce within the meaning ofthe A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17335 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s.Sree Satyanarayana Rice & Groundnut Oil Mill, Mudenepalli-521325 Krishna District rep.by its Partner K.V.Ramachandra Rao 2 M/s.Satyanarayana Traders Mudinepalli-521325, Krishna District. rep.by its Managing Partner Ch.Venugopala Rao ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture(Marketing)Dept Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Gudivada, Krishna District rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direcdt the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock)Market Act, 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circustances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17337 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s.Uma Maheswara Mr & Om, Sultanabad rep.by its Partner K.Ashok S/o.Narayana R/o.Sultanabad, Dist.Karimnagar. 2 M/s.Maruthi Industries, Katnepalli rep.by its Partner, K.V.Bhadraiah 3 M/s.Madhava Industries, Poosala rep.by its Partner, A.Ambadas 4 M/s.Jayakrishna Industries, Katnepalli rep.by its Partner, K.Ramulu 5 M/s.Manjunatha Industries, Katnepalli rep.by its Partner, P.Shiva Kumar 6 M/s.Parameshwari Modern RiceMill,Poosala rep.by its Partner, P.Parameshwar Rao 7 M/s.Seetarama Modern Rice Mill, Poosala rep.by its Partner, S.Ramaiah 8 M/s.Kaveri Modern Rice Mill, Bonthakuntapalli, rep.by its Partner 9 M/s.Manasa Rice Industries, Boopathipur rep.by its Partner, P.Manoher Rao 10 M/s.Janakirama Industries, Poosala rep.by its Partner, P.Linga Reddy 11 M/s.Manasa Industries, Katnepalli rep.by its Partner, D.Rajeshwar Rao 12 M/s.Pavanasutha Industries, Katnepalli rep.by its Partner, K.Janardhan 13 M/s.Varalaxmi Industries, Poosala rep. by its Partner, P.Srinivas 14 M/s.Sainath Industries, Suglampalli rep.by its Partner, P.Thirupathi Reddy 15 M/s.Jagadamba Industries, Sultanabad. rep. by its Partner, D.Narsaiah 16 M/s.Bhavani Shanker Modern Rice Mill, Poosala,rep BY its Partner, V.ThirupathiRao 17 M/s.Saikrishna Modern Rice Mill, Katenpalli, Rep.by its D.Bhooma Rao 18 M/s.Maheswari Modern Rice Mill, Poosala rep.by its Partner Y.Vaikuntam 19 M/s.GouriShanker ModernRice Mill,Poosala rep.by its Partner, Ch.Satyanarayana. 20 M/s.Uma Shanker Modern Rice Mill,Poosala rep.by its Partner, C.Sateesh Rao 21 M/s.Mahalaxmi Modern Rice Mill, Poosala rep.by its Partner, E.Rami Reddy 22 M/s.Bhavani Modern Rice mill, Poosala rep.by its Partner Kota Ranga Reddy. 23 M/s.Raghavendra Modern Rice Mill,Poosala rep.by its Partner, E.Ananda Rao. 24 M/s.Seetaramanjaneya Industries, Katnepalli, rep/its Partner, M.Srinivas 25 M/s.Shiva Shanker Industries, Katnepalli rep.by its Partner, Katla Satyam 26 M/s.Laxminarsimha Industries, Poosala rep.by its Partner, N.Nageshwar 27 M/s.Srinivas Modern Rice Mill, Poosala rep.by its Partner, Y.Dhasharadham AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, F&A(Mrkg) Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Govt.of A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District. rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to(1) to declare that Rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P., (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the Check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting market fee from the petitioner is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 :G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 17340 of 2003 Between: 1 Sri Balaji Paraboiled Modern Rice Mill (N-Sagar Road) Nalgonda, rep.by its Proprietor J.Indra Reddy S/o.Veerareddy, R/o.Nalgonda. 2 Sumanjali Par Boiled (P) Ltd Arijalbavi,Nalgonda, rep.by its Director R Bhadradri Ramulu S/o.Lingaiah,Nalgonda. 3 Sri New Venkataramana Modern Rice and Oil Mill, D.V.K.Road, Nalgonda rep.by its Partner, M.Radha Kissan S/o.Ramulu, R/o.Nalgonda. 4 Sri Rama Paddy Boiling Industry G.K.Annaram Road, Nalgonda rep.by its Managing Partner Y.Ashok R/o.Jangaiah, R/o.Nalgonda. 5 M/s.Mallikarjuna Par Boiled Binny Rice Mill, Munugadu ( Village & Mandal), Nalgonda District, rep.by its Managing Partner K.Narayana, S/o.Laxminarasu, Munugadu. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, F&A (Mrtg.)Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Chandrudu, Nalgonda District. rep.by its Secretary. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to (1) to declare that Rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordnace with Section 2 (1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping of otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the Checkposts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal, and beyond the scope of rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or order appropriate in the circumstances. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 :G.P.FOR AGRICULTURE. Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 17353 of 2003 Between: Sri Satyanarayana Raw & Boiled Rice Mill Koada, Bhimavaram, Rep.by Bonda Satya Kishore, S/o.Bonda Venkateswara Rao, R/o.Kovada, Bhimavaram. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt.of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Govt.of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court MAY be pleased to (1) to declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the moement of rice by the Respondents at the Checkposts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market fee from the petitioner is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Sec.12 of the Act by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ direction. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17591 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s Vijayalakshmi Rice Mill Narsapur Road, Palakol - 534 260 West Godavari District Rep.by its Managing Partner B. Ram Prasad 2 M/s Sesharatna Rice Mill, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District rep. by its Managing Partner,B.V.K. Seshavataram 3 M/s Sri Lokeshwari Rice Mill, Penumandam Road, Palakol- 534 260, West Godavari District rep. by its Managing Partner, B. Manikyam 4 M/s Ravi & Company, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District Rep. by its Partner K. Kanaka Narasimham 5 M/s Vijayalakshmi Narasimha Rice Mill, Nagaraju Peta, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District rep. by its Managing Partner Bolla Veeraswamy 6 M/s Ranga Raju Rice Mill, P.P. Road, Pulapalli - 534 2611, (via) Palakol, West Godavari District rep. by its Partner Vegesina Ranga Raju 7 M/s Sri Sai Ram Rice Trading, Palakol - 534 260 West Godavari District rep. by its Proprietor M.S.R. Venkateswara Rao 8 M/s Bhupathiraju Ramachandra Raju Rice Mill, Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Bh. Uma Parvathi 9 M/s Jupiter Trading Corporation Palakol - 534 260, West Godavari District rep. by its Managing Partner Bonam Narasimha Rao 10 M/s Jaya Lakshni Venkata Narasimha Rice Mill, Pualapalli - 534 261, (via) Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner Jaddu Gandhi Babu 11 M/s Loknath & Co., Ullamparru - 534 265 West Godavari District Rep. by its Partner A. Brahmaiah 12 M/s Akena Brahmaiah & Co., Ullamparru - 534 265, (via) Palakol, West Godavari District rep. by its Partner A. Brahmaiah 13 M/s Jagannadha Surya Lakshmi Rice Mill Ullamparru - 534 265 (via) Palakol, est Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner P. Jagannadha Raju 14 M/s Balaji Rice Mill, Mattaparru - 534 265, West Godavari District rep. by its Partner P. Dharma Raju 15 M/s Sri Satyalakshmi Rice Mill Vedangi - 534 265, (via) Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner P. Ramachandra Raju 16 M/s Addepalli Suryaramachandra Rao & Co. Ullamparru - 534 265 West Godavari District Rep. by its Partner A. Viswanadham 17 M/s Lakshmi Modern Rice Mill, Ullamparru = 534 265, (via) Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Partner P. Sri Rama Raju 18 M/s Lakshmi Venkata Ramana Rice Mill, Achanta Road, Penumadam – 534 273 (via) Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner C,. Janardan Gupta 19 M/s Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice Mill, Canal Road, Jinnur - 534 265 (via) Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner G. Janardan Gupta 20 M/s Suryanarayana Traders, Adavipalem, West Godavari District Rep. by its Proprietor B. Suryanarayana Raju AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P, BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary. 6 The Agricultural Market Committee, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 , is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 6 : Mr.P.VENKATESWARLU AND Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 17746 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s. Raghavendra Trading Company Eluru, West Godavari District rep by its Proprietor,S.V.S.K.Purna Chandra Rao 2 M/s. Lakshmi Ganapathi Traders,ELURU West Godavari District rep by its Proprietor Lakshmikantam 3 M/s.Sai Krishna Rice Mill, Nuziveedu Road, Hanuman Junction ELURU, West Godavari District Rep. by its Proprietor V.Koteswar Rao 4 M/s. Vijaya Bhaskara Traders,Eluru Road, APPANAVEEDU JUNCTION, West Godavari District rep by its Partner G. Jagadeeshwar Rao 5 M/s. Vasavi Datta Rice Company Rice Mill Street, ELURU-534 001. West Godavari District rep by its Proprietor V.Koteswar Rao 6 M/s. Manasa Lakshmi Trading Company, Rice Mills Street, ELURU. West Godavari District Rep by its Partner G.V. Rama Pitchaiah 7 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Kanyaka Rice Mill, BHIMADOLE-534 425. West Godavari District Rep by its Proprietor K.Mohan Rao 8 M/s. Sree Seetha Ramanjaneya Rice Mill, BHIMADONE - 534 425. West Godavari District Rep by its Partner G. Ravi Prasad 9 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Traders, POTUNURU-534, Denduluru Mandalam, West Godavari District Rep by its Proprietor g.Rang Rao 10 M/s. Sri Venkata Subbaraju Rice Mill KAMAVARAPUKOTA, West Godavari District rep by its Partner K.Subba Rao 11 M/s. Satya Sai Rice Traders, ACHANTA - 534 123, West Godavari District Rep by its Managing Partner Ch. Rama Rao 12 M/s. Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, MEDAPADU, Yelamanchili Mandalam, West Godavari District rep by its Proprietor Oduri Krishna Murthy 13 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Traders KONTEDU, Yelamanchili Mandalam West Godavari District Rep by its Partner Tata Narasimha Rao AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P. rep by its Secretary Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Secretary Law and Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P. BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru, West Godavari District Rep by its Secretary. 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bjimadone, West Godavari District Rep by its Secretary. 6 The Agriculture Market Committee Chintalapudi, West Godavari District rep by its Secretary. 7 The Agricultural Market Committee Achanta, West Godavari District Rep by its Secretary. 8 The Agricultural Market Committee, Narasapuram, West Godavari District Rep by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 6 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 17747 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s. Radha Krishna Parboiled Rice Industries, Tammara Bandapalem, KODAD - 508 206. Nalgonda Dist. rep by its Partner G. Anjaiah 2 M/s. Sri Dhana Kanaka Mahalakshmi MUNAGALA - 521 325, Nalgonda Dist. rep by its partner P. Sreenivasa Rao 3 M/s. Sri Sai Srinivasa Trading Company MUNAGALA - 521 325. Nalgonda Dist. Rep by its Proprietor I.Venkateswarulu 4 M/s. Sri Devi Modern Rice & Flour Mill Ganapavaram Road, MUNAGALA – 508 233 Rep by its Partner A. Sudhakar AND ..... PETITIONER(S) 1 The Governmentt of A.P. rep by its Secretary Food andAgriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P. of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Marketing Government of A.P.,BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Kodad, Rep by its Secretary, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaring that rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 17865 of 2003 Between: 1 Sri Umamaheswara Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, A.K.Road,Noonepalli Nandyal, Kurnool District, rep.by its Proprietor,K.C.Annaiah S/o.Pullaiah 2 Modern Cotton & Rice Trading Company, A.K.Road, Noonepalle Nandyal, Kurnool District,rep.by its Proprietor,M.S.Manohar S/o.M.Subramanyam 3 Mustaq Rice MIll, D.No.17/143B,Park Road, Nandyal, Kurnool District, rep.by its Partner, S.B.Ishaq, S/o.S.B.Nabi Saheb 4 Kapila Traders,7/8-A, Nadigadda Street, Nandyal, Kurnool District, rep.by its Partner,L.Satyamaiah, S/o.L.Subbarayudu 5 Sri Kalyan Ram Trade LInes, 21/39-A, Balakonda Hall Street Nandyal, Kurnool District, rep.by its Partner, S.Ram Prasad S/o.Rama Subbaiah 6 Hima Kiran Traders, Nandyal, Kurnool District, rep.by its Proprietor, Gunda Narayana S/o.G.Obaiah 7 Sri Uma Maheswara Rice Mill, Govindapalli(V) Sirvel Mandal Kurnool District, rep.by its Proprietor, P.Eswara Reddy S/o.Bali Reddy AND ..... PETITIONER(S) 1 The Govt.of A.P.,rep.by its Secretary, Food&Agriculture (Mktg.II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Nandyal, Kurnool District rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that Item-2 of Schedule-II of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock)Markets Act, 1966 is not in accordance with Section-2(1)of the said Act is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and further declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and consequently direct the respondents not to stop or otherwise obstruct the movement of rice at the check posts or any other place for collection of market fee from the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.E.AYYAPU REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.BADANA BHASKAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 17926 of 2003 Between:

1. Khaja Traders, rep. by its proprietor, S.Mahaboob Peer S/o.S.Amanullah, aged: 21 years, R/o.221, Old Market, Kadapa.

2. M/s.Ahmed Traders, rep. by its partner S.Iqbal Ahamed, S/o.Syed Ahmed, Aged: 35 years, R/o.11/226, Chammuniapet, Kadapa.

3. Sri Prakash Traders, rep. by its Proprietor K.S.V.Prakash S/o.Subbarayudu, Aged: 52 years, R/o.12/237, PSR Street, Kadapa.

4. New KGN Traders, rep. by its proprietor Y.Mahaboob Basha S/o.Y.M.Jaffarsab, Aged: 46 years, R/o.Habibullah Street, Kadapa.

6. Sri Tirumala Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner K.Subbarayudu S/o.K.Chinna Subbaiah, Aged: 73 years, R/o.3/167, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa. Sree Venkateswara Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor B.Veera Reddy S/o.B.Veera Reddy, Aged: 62 years, R/o.Rukavaripalli village, Palampalli Post, Kadapa.

7. Ameen & Decordicating Mill, rep. by its proprietor S.Amanulla S/o.S.Usman Saheb, Aged: 48 years, R/o.16/520-6, D.C.Road, Kadapa.

8. M/s.Rafi Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Managing Partner Shaik Mohammed Rafi S/o.Abdul Vahab, aged: 44 years, R/o.8/202-3, Almospet, kadapa.

9. Sree Ramanjaneya Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner K.Ramamoorthy S/o.Late K.Ramaiah, Aged: About 40 years, R/o.2/1206-1, Machupalli Road, Kadapa.

10. Sri Dhanya Lakshmi Traders, rep. by its proprietor K.Ramprasad, S/o.Late K.Ramaiah, Aged: 34 years, R/o.14/173, Sangampet, Kadapa.

11. Sree Ramanjaneya Traders rep. by its partner K.Ramamoorthy S/o.K.Ramaiah, Aged: 40 years, R/o.17/139, Monday Bazar, Kadapa.

12. Sree Annapurna Rice and General Merchants, rep. by its Proprietor Kota Narasimha Rao S/o.K.Subbarayulu, Aged: 47 years, R/o.10-569, Bellam, Mondy Street, Kadapa.

13. Sri Vasavi Traders, rep. by its Proprietor Kota Prasad S/o.Kota Subbarayulu, aged: 36 years, R/o.17-205, Monday Bazar, Kadapa.

14. Bilal Traders rep. by its Proprietor S.Allabakash S/o.S.Jabbarsaheb, Aged: 38 years, R/o.14/206, Sarkhajipura Street, Kadapa.

15. B.Balaveera Reddy S/o.B.Veera Reddy, Aged: 35 years, Reddy Rice Merchant, R/;o.Rukavandlapalli, Palampalli Post, Kadapa District.

16. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Mill, rep. by its proprietor T.Venkata Subbaiah, S/o.T.Santanna, aged: 43 years, R/o.1/8, Pathna Kadapa, Kadapa. AND ..... PETITIONER(S)

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. The Agricultural Market Committee, Kadapa, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in notifying Rice as Agricultural Produce for the purpose of levy of Market fee under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 is arbitrary, and illegal and direct the Respondents not to collect any market fee on the Rice from the Petitioners/Sellers either by demand or by way of obstructing the lorries at Check Posts and other vehicles carrying Rice in the District, if necessary, declaring that the Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1976 and pass such other or further order or orders in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.ARIFULLA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.BADANA BHASKAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 18056 of 2003 Between: 1 Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District rep.by its Proprietor B.Muni Krishnaiah S/o.Gopal Rao, R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 2 Dudh Ganga Modern Rice Mill, 5/24, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, rep.by its L.A.Holder G.Nagamma, W/o.Gurivi Reddy, R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 3 Sri New Gopi Modern Rice Mill, Sri Pattabhi Rama Mundy Complex road, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, rep.by its Proprietor G.S.Gurivi Reddy, s/o.Gurivi Reddy R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 4 Annapurna Rice Mill, Paddy&Rice Merchants, 12/2. Mydukur Road, Proddatur, rep.by its Partner C.Rami Reddy S/o.Venkata Reddy, R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 5 Kanakadurga Rice Mill, Paddy&Rice Merchants, Mydukur Road Proddatur rep.by its Partner B.Srinivasulu, S/o.Nagamunaiah R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 6 Sri Vijaya Durga Raw & Boiled rice Mill, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Partner B.Srinivasulu S/o.Nagamunaiah R/o.Mydukur Road,Proddatur, Kadapa District. 7 Sri Srinivasa Rice Mill, Mydukur Road,Proddaatur, Kadapa Dt rep.by its Proprietor B.Nagaraju s/o.Nagamunaiah 8 Sri Vinayaka Modern Rice Mill, Pattabhi Rama Mundy Complex Road, Proddatur rep.by its Proprietor M.Pratap Reddy 9 Sri Venkata Nagendra Modern Rice Mill, Korrapadu Road Proddatur,rep.by its Proprietor K.Muni Reddy S/o.Konda Reddy 10 Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Mill, 10/229.Mydukur Road Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its partner B.Murali Krishna Yadav, S/o.Venkataiah, R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 11 Sai Modern Rice Mill, Korrapadu Road,Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor N.Subrahmanyam S/o.Marthana R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 12 Sri Venga Muni Swamy Modern Rice Mill Par Boiled, Industrial Estate, Proddatur, rep.by its Proprietor C.Nagabhushanam, S/o.Ramaiah R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 13 Madhu Modern Rice Mill, Mydukur Road,Proddatur, Kadapa District rep.by its Proprietor D.Malla Reddy,S/o.Koti Reddy R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 14 Pavani traders, Paddy&Rice Merchants, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor M.Subrahmanyam S/o.Venkateswarlu R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 15 Sudha Traders, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Mydukur Road, Proddatur Kadapa District rep/its Proprietor G.Srinivasulu S/o.Sri Ramulu, R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 16 Gundumalla Ramachandrudu, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Mydukur Road,Proddatur, Kadapa district rep/its Proprietor G.Ramachandrudu S/o.Sriramulu R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 17 Priyanka Enterprises, Mundy Merchants, Room No.75-A, P.R.M. Complex, Proddatur rep/its Proprietor D.Madhusudana Reddy S/o.Malla Reddy, R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 18 Sri Bandlamamba Traders, Paddy,Rice & General Merchants Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District rep.by its Proprietor T.Venkatapathi Gupta, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 19 Sree Vijaya Lakshmi Traders, Foodgrains Merchants, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor B.V.Rajendra Prasad S/o.Tirupalaiah R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 20 B.Anjaneyulu, Paddy,Rice&General Merchant, Mydukur Road Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep/its Proprietor B.Anjaneyulu S/o.Venkataiah, R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 21 Sri Aruni Traders, Paddy&Rice Merchants, Sri New Gopi Modern Rice Mill, Mydukur Road, Proddataur, Kadapa District rep. by its Proprietor V.L.Narasimha Reddy, S/o.Pulla Reddy,R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 22 M.S.Rangaiah Gupta, Paddy&Rice Merchants,14/86, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa district rep.by its Proprietor M.S.Rangaiah Gupta S/o.Narayana Rangaiah, R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 23 Dastagiriswamy Traders, 9/469(H), Mydukur Road, Proddatur Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor E.Dastagiri Reddy S/o.Dastagiri Reddy R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 24 Sri Venkata Nagendra Traders, Foodgrains Merchants, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor K.Muni Reddy, S/o.K.Konda Reddy R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 25 Sri Manjunatha Traders, Paddy,Rice&General Merchants, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor D.Strinivasulu Reddy, S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District 26 B.Jayarami Reddy, Paddy,Rice&General Merchant, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor B.Jayarami Reddy, s/o.Gurivi Reddy R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 27 Sri Gurulakshmi Paddy Rice&General Merchant, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor M.Gurivi Reddy,S/o.Gurivi Reddy R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 28 Savali Venkata Sudhakar, Paddy&Rice Merchants,9/336-E, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District rep.by its Proprietor S.Venkata Sudhakar, S/o.Venkata Ramaiah R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 29 Padmanabha Traders, Paddy, Rice&General Merchants, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor, J.Padmanabhai s/o.Ramaiah R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 30 Juturu Venkata Subbaiah, Paddy, Rice&General Merchants, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor Juturu Venkata SubbaiahS/o.Ramaiah R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 31 Sri Nityapooja Swamy Traders, Paddy&Rice Merchants, 5/1321,Hanuman Nagar, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor J.Sankaraiah S/o.Pedda Venkata Subbaiah R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 32 Sri Krishna Traders, 14/90, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor R.Krishna Murthy, S/o.Subbarayudu, R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. 33 Sri Lakshmi Siva Sai Traders, Wholesale Foodgrains, Paddy& Rice Merchants, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor P.Radha Krishna, S/o.Krishna Murthy R/o.Proddatur, Kadapa District. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P., rep.by its secretary, Food&Agricul- tural (Marketing)Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Proddatur, Kadapa District-516360, rep.by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural Produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock)Markets Act, 1966, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direcst the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce&Live Stock)Market Act, 1966. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.BADANA BHASKAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 18547 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s Shiridi Industries, Dindi ( Devarakonda), Nalgonda District rep. by P. Laxmi Narasimha S/o Anjaneyulu 2 Sri Laxmi Venkateshwara M.B.R.I., M.B.N.R. Road, Devarakonda (M), Nalgonda District rep. by K. Shankaraiah s/o Mallaiah, age, 32 3 Sai Ram Corporation, Konda Mallepally, Devarakonda (M), Nalgonda District rep. by Prop V. Yadaiah s/o Rajaiah, 4 M/s Sri Laxmi B.M.R.M., (Chennaram, Devarakonda (M), Nalgonda District, rep. by Managing Partner B. Srinivas s/o Lingaiah 5 M/s Sri Laxmi Narasimha Modern Rice Mill, Peddapuram, Nampally (M), Nalgonda District, rep. by Managing Partner V. Narasimha S/o Gurunadham 6 M/s Sri Ramakrishna Rice Mill, Nampally, Nalgonda Dist rep. by Managing Partner B. Bixapathy s/oPapaiah, 7 M/s Sri Vinayaka Traders, Marriguda Village & Mandal, Nalgonda District rep. by Partner A. Damodar S/o Hanumanth 8 Sri Ganesh Traders, Konda Mallepally , Nalgonda District rep. by Prop. K. Shekhar s/o Pandaraiah 9 M/s Maheswari B.M.R. Mill, Nampally , (V&M) Nalgonda District rep. by Managing Partner K. Thirupathaiah, s/o Narayana 10 M/s Sai Methra Traders, Nampally ( V&M), Nalgonda Dist, rep. by Prop. P. Keshavardhan s/o Pandaraiah 11 M/s Srirama M.R.M. Kondamalleypally, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District rep. by N. Ravinder s/o Neela Malaiah, ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, rep., by its Secretary. 4 The Agricultural Market Commitee, Venkateswaranagar, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Secetary. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the .....RESPONDENTS circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare the Rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule - II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1958 and therefore not in accordance with sec 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal, and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with action 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction or order appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 18769 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s Rangineni Rice Industries.,Theegalaguttapalli rep.by its Partner Yellenki Venkatesham S/o Ramaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 2 M/s Bhavani Industries, Algunnor rep.by its Partner Konda Srinivas, s/o Kodanda Ramulu R/o Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District. 3 M/S OMKAR PARBOLED MR & OM., ALGUNNOR Rep.by its Partner G.Laxmi Narayana S/o Vishwanatham., R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 4 M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES, GOPALPUR Rep.by its Partner B.Laxman., S/o Sambaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 5 M/S GAYATRI INDUSTRIES PARBOILED RICE MILL., MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner V.Ramesh S/o Chandramouli R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 6 M/S PADMAJA INDUSTRIES, ALGUNNOR Rep.by its Partner T.Pramod S/o Shankaraiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 7 M/S RAGHAVENDRA INDUSTRIES PP UNIT.,MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner S.Laxminarayana S/o Bhoomaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 8 M/S RAJA RAJESWARA ENTERPRISES., MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner S.Laxminarayana s/o Bhoomaiah R/o Karimngar Town., Karimnagar District. 9 M/S SRI PRIYA INDUSTRIES., MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner Konda Srinivas S/o Kodanda Ramulu., r/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 10 M/s HANMAN P.B.R. & O.M.,SADASIVAPALLI Rep.by its Partner Konda Ramesh s/o Kodanda Ramulu R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 11 M/S REVATHI INDUSTRIES., MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner Bukka Poshetty s/o Ramaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 12 M/S NARMADA INDUSTRIES PP UNIT., BOMMAKAL Rep.by its Partner Akula Shankaraiah s/o Veeraiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 13 M/S SAPTHAGIRI TRADERS, RACHARLA BOPPAPUR Rep.by its Partner Pulluri Balakishan S/o Shankaraiah R/o Racharla Boppapur., Karimnagar District. 14 M/S SRI SEETARAMANJANEYA INDUSTRIES.,ALGUNOOR Rep.by its Partner A.Narsinga Rao S/o Ella Rao., Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 15 M/S MANASA INDUSTRIES, MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner B.Mohan Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 16 M/S AKSHARA TRADING CO.,DURSHED Rep.by its Partner Ch.Rajendra Prasad S/o Muralidhar Rao., Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 17 M/S BALAJI TRADING CO., BOMMAKAL Rep.by its Partner Thandra Ashok Rao S/o Thirupathi Rao R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 18 M/S VENKATESWARA MODERN RICE MILL.,THIMMAPUR Rep.by its Partner Boinpally Prabhakar Rao S/o Muralidhar Rao., R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 19 M/S DHANALAXMI INDUSTRIES., BOMMAKAL Rep.by its Partner N.Ramesh Kumar S/o Narsaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 20 M/S GYANESHWAR PARBOILED., MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner Vuthuri Shankaraiah S/o Dubbaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 21 M/S THIRUMALA PR & OM., MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner Vuthuri Shankaraiah S/o Dubbaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 22 M/S SRI SATYA SAI INDUSTRIES., MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner Kailasa Aravind s/o Rajesham R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 23 M/S HANUMAN INDUSTRIES., NAGUNOOR Rep.by its Partner P.Sateesh Kumar.,s/o Sambaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 24 M/S SADASIVA PARBOILED RICE MILL., SADASIVAPALLI Rep.by its Partner T.Ramesh Babu s/o Satyanarayana R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 25 M/S VEERANJANEYA AND COMPANY., KARIMNAGAR., Rep.by its Partner T.Satyanarayana S/o Narsaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 26 M/S VENKATSAI PARBOILED., MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner Y.Prabhakar, S/o Dhasharatham R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 27 M/S LAVANYA INDUSTRIES., SADASIVPALLY Rep.by its Partner A.Kumara Swamy., S/o Narayana R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 28 M/S SATHYA LAXMI INDUSTRIES., NAGUNOOR Rep.by its Partner Konda Srinivas.,s/o Anantha Ramulu, R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 29 M/S VENKATASAIRAM INDUSTRIES., DURSHED Rep.by its Partner N.Ramesh Kumar.,s/o Narsaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 30 M/S KAMAKSHI PAR BOILED INDUSTRIES, NUSTHULAPUR, Rep.by its Partner Gouroshetty Mahender S/o Rajesham R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 31 M/S VENKATAGIRI INDUSTRIES PB UNIT.,NAGUNOOR Rep.by its Partner Mukka Narayana, s/o Kashaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 32 M/S SRI ANJANI PARBOILED MODERN RICE MILL., SADASIVAPALLI.,rep.by its Partner K.Satyanarayana S/o Venkataiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 33 M/S SOMESHWARA TRADING CO., NAGUNOOR Rep.by its Partner R.Venkarasham, s/o Laxmi Rajam R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 34 M/S RAJA RAJESHWARA TRADING CO., KARIMNAGAR Rep.by its Partner S.Laxminarayana, S/o Bhoomaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 35 M/S PARAMESHWARA INDUSTRIES MR & OM.,MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner R.Amarnath, S/o Rajesham R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 36 M/S VASAVI INDUSTRIES PB RICE MILL.,MANAKONDUR Rep.by its Partner K.Ashok, s/o Mallesham R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 37 M/S VENKATASHWARA TRADERS., NUSTHULAPUR Rep.by its Partner K.Ashok, s/o Mallesham R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 38 M/S ARUNODAYA INDUSTRIES., ALGUNOOR Rep.by its Partner V.Rajamouli S/o Nagaiah R/o Karimnagar Town., Karimnagar District. 39 M/S SATYANARAYANA MR & OM.,DHARMARAM Rep.by its Partner J.Rajesham.,s/o Vishwanatham R/o Dharmaram., Karimnagar District. 40 M/S SAI TRADERS., VELGATOOR Rep.by its Partner G.Ratnakar, s/o Vaikuntam R/o Velgatoor., Karimnagar District. 41 M/S KRISHNA INDUSTRIES, KISHANRAOPET Rep.by its Partner V.Srinivas, S/o Prabhakar R/o Kishan Rao., Karimnagar District. 42 M/S HEMADRI TRADERS., ENDAPALLY Rep.by its Partner J.Srinivas, S/o Kishan R/o Endapally., Karimnagar District. 43 M/S ANNAPURNA INDUSTRIES., RANGAMPALLI Rep.by its Partner Katkuri Rajesham s/o Srihari R/o Peddapalli., Karimnagar District. 44 M/S MAHESH TRADING CO., PEDDABONKUR Rep.by its Partner Nagnuri Ashok, s/o Shankaraiah R/o Sultanabad., Karimnagar District. 45 M/S NEELAKANTA INDUSTRIES.,PEDDABONKUR Rep.by its Partner K.Kashipathi, s/o Chandraiah R/o Sultanabad., Karimnagar District. 46 M/S JAYASRI INDUSTRIES PEDDABONKUR Rep.by its Partner N.Ramesh, s/o Vaikuntam R/o Peddapalli., Karimnagar District. 47 M/S OM INDUSTRIES PB UNIT.,RANGAMPALLI Rep.by its Partner T.Chandra Gupta S/o Venkateshwar Rao Gupta., R/o Peddapalli., Karimnagar District. 48 M/S AMRUTH PARBOIL RICE MILL, BANDAMPALLI Rep.by its Partner Madadi Jaipal Reddy S/o Papi Reddy R/o Peddapalli., Karimnagar District. 49 M/S RADHA KRISHNA INDUSTRIES, RANGAMPALLI Rep.by its Partner D.Shiva Shankar.,s/o Rajaiah R/o Peddapalli., Karimnagar District. 50 M/S ADHIVARAHA INDUSTRIES., RANGAMPALLI Rep.by its Partner K.Srinivas, s/o Nagabhushanam R/o Peddapalli., Karimnagar District. 51 M/S HARIHARA INDUSTRIES, RANGAMPALLI Rep.by its Partner M.Rajanna, S/o Chandraiah R/o Peddapalli., Karimnagar District. 52 M/S SHIVA INDUSTRIES.,RANGAMPALLI Rep.by its Partner R.Murali Mohan, s/o Buchirajam R/o Peddapalli., Karimnagar District. 53 M/S HARISHANKARA INDUSTRIES, POOSALA Rep.by its partner Ch.Maruthi., s/o Veeramallaiah R/o Sultanabad., Karimnagar District. 54 M/S SRI RAJA RAJESHWARA MODERN RICE MILL., Katnepalli.,rep.by its Partner D.Aga Rao S/o Rajeshwar Rao R/o Katnepally., Karimnagar District. 55 M/S SAI RAM TRADERS.,KAMALAPOOR Rep.by its Partner N.Ramesh, S/o Satyanarayana R/o Kamalapoor., Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Secretary., Government of A.P., F & A (Mktg.) Dept.,Secretariat., Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketting., Govt.of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Secretary., Agrl.Market Committee., Karimnagar., Karimnagar District. 4 The Secretary., Agrl.Market Committee., Dharmaram., Karimnagar District. 5 The Secretary., Agrl.Market Committee., Peddapalli., Karimnagar District. 6 The Secretary., Agrl.Market Committee., Sultanabad., Karimnagar District. 7 The Secretary., Agrl.Market Committee., Mustabad., Karimnagar District. 8 The Secretary., Agrl.Market Committee., Jammikunta., Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners herein pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that Rice is not an (Agricultural produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the checkposts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Sec.12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, direction or appropriate order in the Circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 8 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 19086 of 2003 Between: 1 Jayam Venu Gopal, Paddy, Rice and General Merchant, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District rep. by its Manager Jayam Venugopal S/o Chinna Venkata Subbaiah, age 42 years R/o Mudukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District 2 Bindumalla Venugopal, Paddy & Rice Dealers, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District Rep. by its Proprietor, B. Venugopal s/o Subba Rao Aged 31 yrs, R/o Mudukur Road, Proddatur. 3 M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Traders, 1/83, Chinnachowk, Madras Road, Kadapa Rep. by its Proprietor K. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Obul Reddy, age 35 yrs, R/o 1/83 Chinnachowk, Madras Road, Kadapa 4 Sree Venkateswara Traders, Vallur, Kadapa District Rep. by its Proprietor P.C. Narayana Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, aged 30 yrs, Occ: Business, r/o Vallur, Kadapa District 5 P. Venkata Subbaiah, Mundy Merchant, 19/97, Varsumiya Street, Kadapa Rep., by its Proprietor P. Venkata Subbaiah, s/o Penchalaiah, aged 53 yrs, R/o Varsumiya Street, Kadapa 6 Sri Varalakshmi Traders, Vallur, Kadapa District Rep. by its Proprietor P. Varalakshmi, W/o Narayana Reddy, aged 32 yrs, occ: Business R/o Vallur, Kadapa District 7 Bhumy Reddy Traders, Paddy Rice Dealer, Mudukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District Rep. by its Proprietor B. Balachenna Reddy, S/o Chenna Reddy, aged 43 yrs, R/o Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District 8 Sri Raghavendra Swamy Rice and General Merchant Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District Rep. by its Proprietor M. Chandra Sekhar S/o Krishna Murthy, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District 9 Sri Satya Sai Traders, Paddy & Rice Merchant Sreeram Nagar, Proddatur, Rep. by its Proprietor B. Chinna Pullaiah s/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged 39 yrs, R/o Sreeram Nagar, Proddatur, Kadapa District AND ..... PETITIONER(S) 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by is Secretary Food & Agricultural (Marketing) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., B.R.K.R. Buildings, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Proddatur, Kadapa District - 516 360, Represented by its Secretary 4 The Agriculural Market Committee, Kadapa, Kadapa District rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural Produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within he meaning of the AP. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act 1966. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4 : MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 :GP FOR AGRICULTURE WRIT PETITION NO : 19184 of 2003 Between: Kusriseti Sri Rama Murty and others Sunday Market, Bhimvaram Rep by its Partner Mr.Sri Rama Murty Bhimavaram - 534201 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The govt of AP rep by its Secretary Food and Agriculture marketing dept. Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Director of marketing,Govt. of AP BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimvaram, West Godavari district rep by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agriculutral produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the AP Agricultural (Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbytary and illegal and direct the respondents no to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by garanting a declaration that Riceis not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the AP agricultural (produce and live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and grant such other rekief as it deems fit and proper in the circumsatnces of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 :GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 :MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 19186 of 2003 Between: M/s Kuriseti Perumallu rep by its Partner Narasimhapuram, Bhimvaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of AP rep by its Secretary Food and Agricultural Marketing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West godavari District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to To issue a writ of mandamus or any orther appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the AP Agricultural (Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitary and illegal, and direct the respondents no to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by garanting a declaration that rice is not agricultural produce within the menaing of the Ap Agriculutral (Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumsatnces of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 19191 of 2003 Between: M/S MSN GUPTA & CO. Rep by its Proprietor Marellavari Street, Bhimavaram-1 AND 1 THE GOVERNMENT OF AP rep by its Secretary FOOD AND ..... PETITIONER AGRICULTURE MARKET DEPT., SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD 2 THE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING GOVERNMENT OF AP BRKR BUILDINGS HYDERABAD 3 THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE Rep by its Secretary BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of market fee under the provisions of the AP AGRICULTURAL (Produce and Live Stoct) MARKET Act, 1996, is arbitary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that the rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the AP AGRICULTURAL (Produce and Live Stock) MARKET Act, 1996, and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19194 of 2003 Between: M/s Sri Naga Venkata Sachidananda Sai Pavan Traders Rep by its Proprietor M. SURYA MANIKYAM BHIMAVARAM-534202 WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THE GOVT OF AP Rep by its Secretary FOOD AND AGRICULTURE MARKETING DEPT, SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD 2 THE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT OF A.P., BRKR BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD 3 THE AGRICUTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, Rep by its Secretary BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of market fee under the provisions of the AP AGRICUTURAL (Produce and Lie Stock) Market Act, 1966, is arbitary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the AP AGRICULTURAL (Produce and Live Stock) Market Act, 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumsatnces of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 19195 of 2003 Between:

1. M/s.Sri Venkata Narasimha Rice Mill, Narasimhapuram, BHIMAVARAM, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner Mr.T.P.V.Narasimha Rao.

2. M/s.Jaya Lakshmi Traders, BHIMAVARAM-534 201, West Godavari District, rep. by its Proprietor Mr.M.Appa Rao.

3. M/s.Sri Satya Sai Durga Traders, Taderu Road, Gunupudi, BHIVAMARAM- 534203, West Godavari District, rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.M.Badari Narayana.

4. M/s.Surya Lakshmi Traders, Kurisetivari Street, BHIMAVARAM-534 201, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner Mr.K.V.Subba Rao.

5. M/s.Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Modern Rice Mill, SRUNGAVRUKSHAM, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner Mr.K.Narayana Rao.

6. M/s.Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Srungavruksham, West Godavari District, rep. by its partner Mr.K.Naga Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy.

7. M/s.Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, Srungavruksham, West Godavari District, rep. by its partner Mr.K.Venkata Rama Mohana Rao.

8. M/s.Sri Ambica Traders, Undi Road, Narasimhapuram, Bhimavaram-534 202, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner Mr.K.S.Ramanjaneyulu.

9. M/s.Sri Rama Haradev Traders C/o.Sri Rama Venkata Rama Rice Mill, Narasimhapuram, Bhimavaram-534 202, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner Mr.K.Satyanarayana Murthy.

10. M/s.Sri Uma Someswara Rice Mill, Gunupudi, Bhimavaram-534 201, West Godavari District, rep. by its partner Mr.B.Kumara Venkataratnam.

11. M/s.Sri Kali Prasadbabu Rice Traders, Bhimavaram-534 203, West Godavari District, rep. by its Proprietor Mr.T.N.S.V.S.Krishna Murty.

12. M/s.R.R.Rice Traders, Akividu-534 235, West Godavari District, rep. by its Managing partner Mr.T.N.K.Manikya Rao.

13. M/s.Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Konithiwada-534 240, Veeravasaram Mandal, West Godavari District, rep. by its Partner K.Rayapa Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary.

4. The Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary.

5. The Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agriculture produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the AP Agricultural (Produce and live stock) Markets Act, 1996, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 5 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19265 of 2003 Between: Sri Lakshminarayana Rice & Flour Mill, Bhimavaram-534201, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P.rep.by its Secretary Food & Agriculture ( Marketing) Department, Secreatriat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by graning a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaing of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live stock) Market Act, 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 19266 of 2003 Between: Sri Sairam Modern Rice Mill TADERU - 534202, West Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary Food & Agrl., (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, W.G.District, rep.by its Seciety. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the .....RESPONDENTS circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (produce & Live Stock0 Market Act, 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19267 of 2003 Between: Sri Naga Venkata Srirama satyanarayana Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, Taderu-534 202, West Godavari District, rep., by its Managing Partner Mr.K.Achyuta Rama Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing ) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P,BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District rep., by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market fee under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled fromm out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the AP.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 19268 of 2003 Between: Manda Venkata Ratnam & others, Bhimavaram-534 201, West Godavari District, rep., by its Managing Partner Mr.M.Venkata Ratnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep., by its secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Govt., of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District rep., by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in nofigying the rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of market fee under the provisions of the A.P., Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist thepetitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966 and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 19269 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Rukmini Krishna Par Boiled Rice Mill, Kovvuru Road, Kakinada-533 002, East Godavari District, rep., by its Managing Partner Mr.Ch.Naga Srinivas. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Bldgs., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Kakinada, East Godavari District rep., by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P., Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live stock), Market Act, 1966 and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19270 of 2003 Between: Naga Durga Rice Traders, Nallamvari Tota, Bhimavaram-534 201 rep., by its Partner Mr.B.Pulleswara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government, of A.P., rep., by its Secretary Food and Agricultura (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings,Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District rep., by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or anyother appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of market fee under the provisions of the A.P., Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illega, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) WRIT PETITION NO : 19639 of 2003 Between:

1. M/s.Sri Laxmi Modern Rice & Oil Mill, Suraiahpally, rep. by its partner Smt.V.Laxmi W/o.Satyanarayana, Age: 30 years, Manthani.

2. M/s.Sri Satya Sai Par boiled Industries, Manthani, rep. by its partner K.Mahadev S/o.Narsaiah, Age: 72 years, R/o.Manthani.

3. M/s.Jayalaxmi Modern Rice Mill, Kucherajupally, rep. by its partner M.Damoder S/o.Venkataiah, Age: 36 years, R/o.Manthani.

4. M/s.Sri Shiva Sai Rice Mill, Manthani, rep. by its partner Smt.K.Swarajya Laxmi W/o.Buchaiah, age: 26 years, R/o.Manthani.

5. M/s.Sri Sai Paraboiled Rice Mill, Gouthaminagar, rep. by its Partner M.Chandramouli S/o.Rayamallu, age: 47 years, R/o.Godavarikhani.

6. M/s.Sri Raja Rajeshwara BMRM, Markandeya Colony, rep. by its partner M.Kanakaiah, S/o.Rayamallu, Age: 43 years, R/o.Godavarikhani.

7. M/s.Jyothi Modern Rice Mill, Godavarikhani, rep. by its partner T.Raj Kumar S/o.Satyanarayana, age: 28 years, R/o.Godavarikhani.

8. M/s.Sri Bhavani Shanker Industries, Jyothinagar, rep. by its partner K.Srinivas Reddy S/o.Chennareddy, Age: 32 years, R/o.Godavarikhani.

9. M/s.Thirumala Industries, Rampur, rep. by its Partner Kyasa Upender, S/o.Mallaiah, age: 36 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

10. M/s.Sri Shanker Rice Mill, Huzurabad, rep. by its partner Kyasa Mallaiah S/o.Venkatesham, age: 60 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

11. M/s.Jyothi Modern Rice Mill, Bornapally, rep. by its partner B.Bhasker S/o.Narayana, age: 35 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

12. M/s.Jaganmatha Industries, MRM, Bornapally, rep. by its partner Chanda Srinivas S/o.Chandramouli, age: 23 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

13. M/s.Manjunath Traders, Bornapally, rep. by its partner P.Prabhaker S/o.Venkataiah, age: 44 years.

14. M/s.Chandrakantha MR & OM, Bornapally, rep. by its Partner Pulluri Srikanth S/o.Sudhaker, age: 23 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

15. M/s.Radha Krishna Traders, Bornapalli, rep. by its partner V.Manoher S/o.Mondaiah, age: 35 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

16. M/s.Manikanta Industries MRM, Bornapalli, rep. by its partner S.Venugopal S/o.Gouraiah, age: 36 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

17. M/s.Sri Laxminarasimha Swamy MRM, Huzurabad, rep. by its partner K.Srinivas S/o.Satyanarayana, age: 34 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

18. M/s.Sri Datta Sai Industries, Uppal, rep. by its partner M.Linga Rao S/o.Rama Rao, age: 49 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

19. M/s.Yashwanth Industries, Bornapalli, rep. by its Partner S.Surender S/o.Srisailam, age: 32 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

20. Mulkanoor Co-Op Rural Bank and Marketing Society Ltd., Mulkanoor, rep. by its General Manager M.Laxma Reddy S/o.Gurvareddy, age: 55 years, R/o.Mulkanoor.

21. M/s.Annapurna Industries, Bornapalli, rep. by its partner P.Satyanarayana S/o.Venkata Mallaiah, Age: 40 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

22. M/s.Sri Janardhana MR & OM, Chelpoor, rep. by its partner Kalva Ramana Reddy S/o.Krishna Reddy, Age: 59 years, R/o.Chelpoor.

23. M/s.Annapurna Enterprises, Huzurabad, rep. by its proprietor P.Satyanarayana S/o.Venkata Mallaiah, age: 40 years, R/o.Huzurabad.

24. M/s.Maruthi Industries MRM, Manakondur, rep. by its partner N.Rammohan S/o.Laxmi Kantham, age: 42 years, R/o.Karimnagar.

25. M/s.Surya Industries, Peddapally, rep. by its partner Musthyala Lingamoorthy S/o.Ramaiah, Age: 30 years, R/o.Peddapally.

26. M/s.Sri Srinivasa Parboiled Rice Mill, Chalgal, rep. by its partner Kotagiri Kishan S/o.Venkataiah, Age: 49 years, R/o.Jagitial.

27. M/s.Hanuman Traders, Chalgal, rep. by its partner Ch.Anand Rao S/o.Sudhaker Rao, age: 32 years, R/o.Jagitial.

28. M/s.Sri Venkataramana Grains, Jagitial, rep. by its Partner J.Rama Krishna S/o.Rammohan, age: 33 years, R/o.Jagitial.

29. M/s.Surabhi Industries, Chalgal, rep. by its partner T.Srinivas Rao S/o.Dharma Rao, age: 36 years, R/o.Jagitial.

30. M/s.Navayuga Industries, Lingampet, rep. by its partner Y.Gangadhar S/o.Lingaiah, age: 55 years, R/o.Lingampet.

31. M/s.Sri Anjaneya Traders, Chalgal, rep. by its partner B.Krishna Murthy S/o.Nagabhushanam, age: 33 years, R/o.Jagitial.

32. M/s.Laxmi Rice Mill, Ambaripet, rep. by its partner Y.Mallesham S/o.Mallesham, age: 33 years, R/o.Ambaripet.

33. M/s.Sri Balaji Grains, Jagitial, rep. by its Proprietor Ananthula Sridhar S/o.Murali, age: 32 years, R/o.Jagitial.

34. M/s.Sri Laxmi Ganesh Industries, Chepyal, rep. by its partner, Smt.V.Krishna Veni W/o.Srinivas, age: 26 years, R/o.Karimnagar.

35. M/s.Sri Laxmi Trading Co., Kurikyal, rep. by its Partner V.Srinivas S/o.Narayana, age: 35 years, R/o.Karimangar.

36. Sri Raghavendra MRM, Chalgal, rep.by its partner B.Ashok, S/o.Shankaraiah, Age: 45 years. (Petitioners 1 to 36 are residents of Karimnagar District) ..... PETITIONERS AND

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. The Agricultural Market Committee, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, rep. by its Secretary.

4. The Agricultural Market Committee, Manthani, Karimnagar District, rep. by its Secretary.

5. The Agricultural Market Committee, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District, rep. by its Secretary.

6. The Agricultural Market Committee, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District, rep. by its Secretary.

7. The Agricultural Market Committee, Karimangar, Karimnagar District, rep. by its Secretary.

8. The Agricultural Market Committee, Jagitial, Karimnagar District, rep. by its Secretary.

9. The Agricultural Market Committee, Gangadhara, Karimnagar District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased (!) to declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-11 of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 9 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20528 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s Rajendar Industries, Kothacheruvu Road, Mahabubnagar, rep. by Partner G. Vijaya Kumar S/o Narsimlu, age 42 years 2 M/s Shiva Ganga Binny Modern Rice Mill, Janampet Village H.O., D.No. 1-7-152/1, New Gunj, Mahboobnagar, rep, by Partner K. Srinivasulu S/o late J, Jaya Rao age 33 yrs, R/o Mahbubnagar 3 Sri Santosh Industries, Nawabpet road, Mahbubnagar, rep, by Partner P. Narasimha Reddyts/o P.N. Reddy 4 M/s Radha Krishnba Industries, Nawabpet Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Partner P. Rameshwar S/o Narsimulu, age 46 years 5 Sri Rama Krishna Rice & Oil Mill, New Gunj, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Partner M. Chandrasekhar Reddy S/o M. Gal Reddy, age 26 yrs 6 Laxmi Rice Mill, Doddalonipalli, Pillalamarri Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Partner K. Narsimulu S/o Chandraiah, age 58 years 7 Super Trader, General Merchants & Commission Agents, 4-2-100, Prakashawadi, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its Proprietor Mr. K. Bhoomeshwar S/o Venkataiah, age 55 years 8 Deccan Industries, Industrial Estate, Pillalamarry Road, Mahboobnagar, rep. by Partner Zahid Hussain Hashmi 9 Gurudatta Traders, Commission Agent & General Merchant, New Gunj, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its Proprietor D. Sridhar S/o D. Hanmanthaiah, age 46 Years 10 Sree Seetharama Traders, Nawabpet Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by partner B.Balanarayana S/o B.Bheemaiah, 11 Ganapathi Laxmi Industries, Boyapally Sivar Nawabpet Road, Mahbubnagar, rep.by its Proprietor Mr.D. Vijaya Kumar S/o D. Vishwanatham, age 38 years 12 New Saibaba Traders, H.No. 1--7-153/A2, Kothacheruvu Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Partner P. Ramesh S/o P. Satyaiah, age 33 yrs 13 Gubba Srinivasulu & Brothers, Food Grain Dealers & Commission Agent, Old Gunj, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Prop. G. Srinivasulu s/o G. Krishnaiah age 34 years 14 M/s Sri Mallikarjuna Rice Mill, Hunwada (Mdl)., Mahbubnagar District, rep. by Partner N. Nagaiah S/o N. Veesaiah, age 46 years, r/o Hunwada 15 Suresh Industries, Nawabpet Road, Mahbubnagar rep. by Partner M. Bheemaiah s/o M. Venkaiah 16 M/s Shiva Teja Industries, Nawabpet Road, Boyapally Shiwar, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its Proprietor D. Shashikumar S/o D. Parvathaiah, age 36 years 17 M/s Chandrasekhara Industries, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Partner C.H. Krishnaiah s/o late Ch. Lingaiah 18 New Srinivasa Binny Modern Rice Mill, H.No. 1--7-152/D/9, Vana Gutta, Nawabpet Road, Mahabubnagar, rep. by its Partner P. Jagadeeshwar S/o P. Shivadarshanam, age 24 years 19 Narasimha Industries, Kothacheruvu Road, New Gunj, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its partner Mr.R.U. Nagender S/o R. Krishnaiah, age 45 years 20 Jagadeesh Binny Modern Rice Mill, Kothacheruvu Road Mahbubnagar, rep. by its Partner K. Chandramouly S/o K. Shambashivaiah, age 50 yrs 21 Samantha Binny Modern Rice Mill, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Partner A. Ramesh s/o A. Nagaiah, R/o Mahbubnagar 22 Laxmi Varasiddi Vinayaka Traders C/o Gopalakrishna Industries, Kotha Cheruvu Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Prop. B. Chandrasekar s/o Krishnaiah, age 40 years 23 Sri Venkateshwara Traders, Food Grains & Commission Agents, Kothacheruvu Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its Proprietor P. Vasantha Laxmi W/o P. Ananthaiah, age 37 years R/o Mahbubnagar 24 M/s Bhanu Perboiled Rice Mill, Pothulamaldugu N.H.7, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahbubnagar Dist rep. by partner G. Damodar s/o G. Maraiah, age 40 yrs 25 Sri Laxmi Narayana Industries, G.N. Oil & Paraboiled Rice Mill, New Gunj, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its partner G. Narsimlu s/o G. Narayana, age 39 years 26 Sri Raja Rajeshwari Industries, Kotha Cheruvu road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Partner V. Nagabhushanam S/o V. Ramulu, age 45 years 27 Sri Rama Rice Mill, Kotha Cheruvu Road, New Gunj, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Partner K. Chandramouli S/o K. Ramulu, age 45 years 28 P. Ambaji Rao Rice Mill, Mahbubnagar, rep. by prop. K. Narsing Rao s/o K. Pandarinath, R/o Mahbubnagar 29 Annapurna rice Mill, Kothacheruvu Road, Mahabubnagar rep. by partner Md. Anis s/o Younus Ahmned, age 33 yrs 30 Simhagiri laxmi Narasimha Swamy Industries, Koilkonda Road, Bandamedipally Shivar, Mahabubnagar rep. by Prop., M. Suryanarayana S/o M Ramachandraiah, age 64 years 31 M/s R.V.R. Binny Modern Rice Mill, Bokkalonpally, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Managing Partner R.Ugandhar Reddy S/o R.R.P. Reddy, age 32 years 32 R.V.R. Industries, Bokkalonipally, Mahbubnagar, rep. by Partner R. Ugandhar Reddy S/o R. Rathangapani Reddy, age 32 yrs 33 Sri Rama Industries, Old Bus Stand, Mahbubnagar rep by Partner K. Rama Krishna S/o K. Buchaiah, age 30 years 34 Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Industries, Allipur, Raichur Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by S. Madhusudhan S/o S. Veeraiah, age 51 years 35 Sree Siddeshwara Industries, Binny Modern Rice Mill, Kothacheruvu Road, New Gunj, Mahabubnagar, rep. by its Partner G. Damodar s/o G.Manaiah, Age 40 years 36 Sri Ramalingeshwara Industries, Nawabpet Road, Bolyapally, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its Proprietor K. Purushotham, S/o Jayarao, age 27 years 37 Sri Vasavi Industries, Nawabpet Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its partner C. Balaswamy s./o Chellaiah 38 M/s Sri Rakshitha Traders, Market Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its Partner S.Ravindar Reddy s/o S. Rajeshwar Reddy 39 Sri Balaji Trading Co., New Gunj, Mahbubnagar rep. by its Partner K. Ashok Kumar s/o K. Devendar 40 M/s Durga Industries, Raichur Road, Mahbubnagar, rep. by its partner B. Nandu Raju s/o Narsoji, 41 Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Rice Mill, Kothacheruvu Road New Gunj, Mahboobnagar,rep. by its partner P. Yadaiah Gupta S/o P. Ananthaiah Gupta, age 49 years 42 M/s Madhavi Traders, Ramolah Bowli, Abdul Khadar Dharga, Raichur Road, Mahboobnagar, rep. by its Partner M. Neela s/o M.S. Gupta, age 47 years 43 M/s Durga Industries, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahbubnagar rep. by its Managing Partner, P. Narsimulu S/o Chandraiah, age 45 years AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, F&A (Mktg) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by Secretary 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Mahboobnagar, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefrom item 2 of Schedule -II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(`1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule - II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obsructing the movement of rice by the respondents at the check aposts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the Petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Sec. 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 20578 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s Venkata Datta Paraboiled Rice Mill Rep. By Partner K. Veeresham S/o. K.Krishnaiah ,Yelikatta X Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District 2 Sri Murali Krishna Binny Modern Rice Mill Rep. By Prop K.Veeresham S/o.K.Krishnaiah, Keshampet Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District 3 Lepakshi Binny Rice Mill Rep. By Prop. K. Kista Reddy S/o K. Linga reddy Sy.No.161 Solipur, N.H.7 Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District 4 Thirumala Binny Rice Mill Rep. By Prop. G. Shekar Reddy S/o G. Chinna Reddy, Ajypally Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District 5 Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Industries Rep. By Prop. K. Narsimha S/o K.Narsaiah, Pargi Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District 6 Sri Srinivasa Binny Rice Mill Rep. By. Prop. A.Srinivas S/o A. Eshwaraiah Pargi Road Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District 7 Sri Manikanta Industries( Parboiled & Raw Rice Products) Rep. by its Partner T.Prakash S/o K.Ramaiah, Sy.No.89 & 90, Elikatta, Sardar Nagar Road, Shadnagar Mahaboob Nagar District. 8 Hanuman Industries Rep. By Partner Bhagwandas malai S/o Gopikishan Malai, Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District. 9 Sapthagiri Industries (Praboiled & Raw Rice Products) Rep. By Partner K.Krishnaiah S/o K.Ramachandraiah, N.H.Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District 10 Sri Balaji Modern Binny Rice Mill Rep. By Partner V. Krishnaiah S/o V. Srisailam, Keshampet Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District 11 Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill Rep. By Managing Partner A.Veeresham S/o A.Yellaiah, Door 6-2 Keshampet Road, Shadnagar Mahaboob Nagar District. 12 Sri Venkata Krishna Modern Rice Mill rep. By Prop. B. Narsimulu S/o B. Krishnaiah, Keshampet Road Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District. 13 M/s .Ramaiah Rice Mill Rep. By Prop. S.Satyanarayana S/o S.Ramaiah Chettanpally, Kothapet Road, Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District. 14 Gowrishankar Binny Rice Mill Rep. By Partner B.Basavaiah S/o B.Chinnaiah Nawabpet Road Kondurg, Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District. 15 M/s Baba Rice Mill, Paddy & Rice Rep. By Partner Md.Samdhani S/o S.K.Mahammed, Near Darga Veljerla, Farooqnagar (Mandal), Mahaboob Nagar District 16 M/s Shanthi Industries Rep. By Partner K.Bala Chandra Sekhar S/o K.Vishwanatham, Mogaligidda (Village), Farooqnagar (Mandal), Mahaboob nagar District. AND ..... PETITIONER(S) 1 The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, F & A(Mktg.) Department, Rep. By its Secretary, Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Shadnagar, Mahaboob Nagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to To declare that Rice is not an Agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of schedule- II of the A.P. ( Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the Check Posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the Petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in according with sec.12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, direction or appropriate Order. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 20686 of 2003 Between: 1 Sri Laxmi Rajendera Industries, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner V. Muralikrishna, S/o. V. Pentaiah, age : 38 years. 2 Sri Satyanarayana Industries, Jadcherla rep by Partner S. Govindram Sankla, S/o. Gasiram, age : 43 years. 3 Bhanu Traders, Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor G. Satyanarayana S/o.G. Vishwanatham, age: 30 years 4 Srinivasa Trading Co., Jadcherla, rep by its Partner G. Prakash,S/o. G.Vishwanatham 5 M/s. Ravi Rice Mill, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner P.Anjireddy,S/o.Narsimha Reddy 6 M/s. Naresh Trades, Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor A. Manohar, S/o.A.Madhavaswamy 7 Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Jadcherla, rep by its Managing Partner P.Srikanth Reddy,S/o.P.RangaReddy 8 Mallikarjuna Modern Rice Mill, Jadcherla, rep by its partner S. Uday Shanker, S/o. S. Srisailam age : 40 9 Sri Perumalla Industries, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner P. Narsimha Reddy, S/o. P. Krishna Reddy age : 45 years 10 Sri Laxmi Narasimha Rice Mill, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner B.L. Prakash,S/o.B.Laxminarayana 11 G. Gopal Traders, Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor G. Gopal S/o. G. Buchaiah 12 M/s. Loya Trading Co. Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor Sri Bhagwan Loya, S/o.Radheshyam Loya. 13 Sri Annapurna Industries, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner K.S. Chandramouli, S/o. K. Sambasivaiah age : 66 years. 14 Srinivasa Rice & Oil Mill, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner G. Srinivasulu Gupta, S/o. G. Vishwanatham Gupta age : 42 years. 15 Badam Balaiah Rice Mill, Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor B. Narayana, S/o. B. Balaiah age : 52 years 16 M/s. Sri Dhana Laxmi Industries, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner Y. Devender Gupta, S/o. Y. Laxmaiah age : 55 years. 17 Venkateshwara Trading Co., Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor G. Kumar, S/o. G.Vishwanatham 18 M/s. G. Ramesh & Sons, Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor G. Murali Mohan,S/o.G.Ramesh 19 Venkateshwara Enterprises, Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor V. Gopal, S/o. Bheemalingam. 20 Radhakrishna Rice Mill, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner Dwarakadas Jawar, S/o. Maniklal Jawar age : 65 years 21 Sri Laxmi Narasimhaswamy Industries, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner G. Manaiah,S/o.G.Rajaiah 22 Srinivasa Industries, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner M. Ravinder, S/o. M.Veeraiah 23 Sri Venkateshwara Modern Rice Mill, Jadcherla rep by its Partner G. Sudhakar, S/o. G. Narsimulu 24 Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Jadcherla, rep by its Partner P. Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Narayan Reddy ag e: 48 years 25 Sri Vidya Trading Co., Jadcherla, rep by its Partner G.Narayana,S/o. G. Balaiah 26 Sri Laxmi Industries, Jadcherla rep by its Partner G. Balraj, S/o. G. Rangaiah 27 Vishwa Prasad Trading Co., Jadcherla, Rep by its Manager G. Balraj, S/o. G. Rangaiah 28 M/s. Faruk Omer Mill, Binny Modern Rice Mill, Jadcherla, rep by its partner Mohd. Zeekar, S/o. Adbudl Azeez, age : 32 years. 29 M/s. Hemadri Traders, Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor K. Venkatesh, S/o. K. Chandramouli 30 M/s. Sri New Satya Sai Traders, Jadcherla, rep by its Proprietor K. Balaswamy, S/o. Krishnaiah 31 M/s. Kondarama Industries Rice Mill, Nagar, Kurnool. rep by its Partner P. Srinivasulu,S/o. Krishnaiah 32 Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Trading Co., Jedcherla rep by its Proprietor G. Srinivasulu, S/o. G. Vishwanatham AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Food & Agricultural (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Jadcherla, Mahbubnagar Dist. Rep by its Secretary 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Nagar Kurnool. Mahbubnagar Dist. rep by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare that rice is not an Agricultural Produce and therefore lies 2 of the Schedule-II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of schedule-II of the act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by the respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding the collecting Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyand the scope of Rule 75 and not is accordance with section 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus of any either Writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 21215 of 2003 Between: 1 Aishwaraya Industries, Kuntloor, Hayatnagar (M), Ranga Reddy District, rep by Naresh Kumarun obel, S/o. Lalchand. 2 M/s. Gayathri Industries (Rice Mill) Karmaghat X Road, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, rep by G. Jitandrakumar S/o. Venkaiah. 3 Sri Laxmi Narsimha Industries, Karmanghat, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, rep by G. Jitendrakumar,S/o. Dulichand Goenka. 4 Goenka Industries, S.No. 90, Yamanampet, Gatakesar, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by Rajeev Goenka, S/o. Dulichand Goenka. 5 Poojitha Par Boiled Rice Mill, Kuntloor,Ranga Reddy District, rep by B. Praveen,S/o.B.Janardhan. 6 Aman Paddy Processors (P) Ltd. Sheriguda, Bagayath Ibrahimpatnam(M) R.R. Dt. rep by Inderlal Agarwal,S/o. Sagarmal. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P. rep by its Secretary, Food & Agrl. (Mktg.) Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad. H.O. Malakpet, Hyderabad. rep by its Selection grade Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare that rce is not an agriculture produce and therefore item 2 of schedule - II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2 (1) of the Act and Strike down item 2 of schedule-II of the Act and (3) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement or rice by the respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with sec.12 of the Act by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2 : GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 22867 of 2003 Between: M/s.Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice & Floor Mill, Chintalapudi-534460, Chitalapudi Mandal, W.G.Godavari District, rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr.M.Satyanarayana AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Government of A.P.,rep. by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Dept.,Secretariat, Hyd. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the Provisions of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal, and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act, 1966. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.POSANI VENKATESWARLU WRIT PETITION NO : 23051 of 2003 Between: 1 Vasavi Industries Modern Rice Mill & Decordigates, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner B.Nagender s/o B.Krishnaiah age 43 years 2 M/s Vasavi Rice Industries, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner V.Parameshwar s/o Balaswamy 3 M/s Vijayalaxmi Binny Rice Mill, Main Road, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner S. Karuna Swamy S/o Swamy. 4 M/s.Venkateswara Rice Mill, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner Shiva Pandaiah S/o.Balaiah. 5 M/s Krishna Modern Rice Mill, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Proprietor G.Krishnaiah s/o G. Balaiah. 6 M/s Sai Industries, Uppunthala Road, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner A.Srinivasulu s/o Eshwaraiah. 7 M/s Raghavendra Industries Rice Mill, Kollapur, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner G.Balchandraiah S/o Krishnaiah. 8 M/s Sai Krishna Traders, Pentlavelli, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner S.Sivanarayana s/o Krishnaiah. 9 M/s Sai RAm Binny Rice Mill, Kollapur, Mahaboobnagar District, Rep by Its Partner A. Seshaiah s/o Seshaiah. 10 M/s Vasavi Binny Rice Mill, Kollapur, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Proprietor A.Naveen s/o Naveen. 11 Mahabub Modern Binny Rice Mill, Pentlavelly, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by its Proprietor B.S. Chand Pasha S/o Pasha. 12 M/s Sri Rama Industries, Kothakota, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner B.Venkateswarlu, S/o B.Ramulu. 13 Sri Ramanjaneya Industries, Kothakota, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner J.Vishnumurthy S/o J.Pedda Buchaiah. 14 Sri Sapthagiri Rice Mill, Pebbair, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner R. Prabhakareddy, S/o R. Balreddy. 15 M/s Challa Insdustries Rice Mill, Pebbair, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by its Partner C.Satyanarayana Reddy S/o Venkatreddy. 16 M/s Sri Satya Sai Industries, Chemilla Pabbair, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Proprietor B. Rajeswaramma, W/o B.Balachandraiah. 17 M/s Ramesh Rice Mill, Kothakota Road, Kothakota Road, Pebbair, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by its Proprietor D.Ramesh, S/o Sriramulu. 18 Shiva Baba Rice Mill, N.H. 7 Hyderabad Road, Pebbair, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Proprietor R.Chandralaka, W/o R.Prahlad. 19 M/s balaji Traders, N.H. 7 , Kurnool Road, Kothakota, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by its Proprietor K.Balaswamy, S/o K. Pandurangaiah. 20 M/s Sri Laxmi Narshimaswamy Rice Mill, N.H. 7, Amudabakala village Kothakota Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by Partner B. Venkateshwarlu, S/o B. Raghunandan. 21 Laxmikantha Industries, Exports –Imports, K.D.R. Nagar Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner L.Sriramulu, S/o Seethaiah. 22 M/s Bahrath Rice Mill, 32-63, Pangal Road Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by its Managing Partner K.Dharma Reddy , S/o K.Bucha Reddy. 23 M/s Sapthagiri Traders, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Proprietor R.Venkataramana S/o R.Satyanarayana. 24 Sri Venkateswara Industries Rice Mill, IEEJA, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by its Partner M. Venkateswarlu S/o M.Venkaiah. 25 Venugopa Trading Co., Commission & Food Grains, New Gunj, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner A.Seshanna, S/o A.Pullanna. 26 M.Krishna Murthy Modern Rice Mill, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Proprietor M. Krishnamurthy, S/o M. Narayana. 27 M/s. Swathi Traders, Chintalpet, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by its Managing Partner M. Venkataswamy, S/o M. Baliah. 28 Sri Sapthagiri Industry & Rice Mill, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Proprietor A. Rammohan, S/o A. Venkatswamy. 29 M/s Venkataramana Rice Mill, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, rep by its Partner S.Ravibabu S/o S.Jannaiah Setty. 30 Sri Vigneshwara Traders, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by its Proprietor S. Ravibabu, S/o S. Jannaiah Setty. 31 Sri Srinivasa Industries , Binny Modern Rice Mill, IEEJA, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by its Managing Partner C.Satish, S/o.Laxmikantham. 32 M/s Udaya Bhanu Traders, Commission & General Merchants, Shanthinagar, Mahaboobnagar, rep. by its Proprietor B. Ashok Kumar, S/o Ashok. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad 3 The Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 The Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Kollapur, Mahaboobnagar District. 5 The Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Wanaparthy Road, Mahaboobnagar District. 6 The Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. 7 Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. 8 The Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Alampur X Road, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare that Rice is not an agricultural Procduce and therefore item -2 so Schedule - II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstucting the movement of Rice by the Respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the Petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumtances of the case and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 to 8 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 23126 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s.Raghavendra Industries, Koil Sagar Road, Deverkadra, Mahboobnagar District, rep.by its Partner, K.Kannaiah Setty, S/o.K.Srinivasulu, R/o.Devarakonda 2 Sri Raghavendra Industries Minny Modern Rice Mill, New Gunj, Near Yanagutta, Mahabubnagar, Rep. by its Partner, M.Yadi Reddy, S/o.M.Narsimha Reddy, R/o.Mahaboobnagar. 3 Shiridi Sai Rice Mill, Kothachervu Road, Mahaboobnagar, Rep. by its Partner, K.Pandurangaiah, S/o.K.Nagi Reddy, R/o.Mahaboobnagar. 4 Sree Sai Traders, General & Food Grains Merchant, New Gunj, Mahaboobnagar, Rep. by Partner, T.Subash Gupta, S/o.T.Ramachandraiah, R/o.Mahboobnagar. 5 Shri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Rice Mill, Janampet, Mahboobnagar District, Rep. by its Partner,S.Rangaiah, S/o.Lokaiah, R/o. Janampet. 6 Sri Anjaneya Rice Mill, Bhoothpur Village & Mandal, Mahboobnagar District, Rep. by its Mg. Partner,B.Ramakrishna, S/o. B.Venkatnarsimulu, R/o. Phoothpur. 7 M/s.Venkateshwara Rice Mill, Annasagar, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahboobnagar District, Rep. by Partner, M.Krishnaiah, S/o.M.Narayana, R/o. Annasagar. 8 Hanuman Rice Mill, Janampet, Maboobnagar District, Rep. by Partner, P.Venkataiah, S/o.Veerabhadraiah., R/o.Janampet. 9 Sri Guru Raghavendra Industries, Narayanpet X Road, Makthal, Mahbobnagar Dikstrict, Rep. by Prop. Katta Srinivas Gupta, S/o. Jairamlu, R/o. Makthal. 10 M/s.Star Industries Rice Mill, Makthal, rep. by Partner, C.Nizampasha, S/o. Mohd.Saab, R/o. Makthal. 11 Bharath Modern Rice Mill, Obulaipally, rep. by Partner, K.Shamkar, S/o. K.Chinnaiah, R/o. Obulaipally. 12 M/s.Sadguru Raghavendra, Parboiled Industries, Kalwakurthy, Mahboobnagar District, rep. by Managing Partner, J.Chandramouli, S/o. J.Narayana, R/o. Kalwakurthy. 13 Sri Raghavendra Industries, Kalwakurthy, Rep. by Partner, J.Chandramouli, S/o. J.Narayana, R/o.Kalwakurthy. 14 M/s.Maheshwari Industries, Charakonda Village, Mahboobnagar District, rep. by Partner, J.Rameshbabu, S/o.J.Chandramouli, R/o.Charakonda. 15 M/s.Parameshwari Industries, Thirumalagiri Village, Mahaboobnagar District, rep. by Partner, J.Rameshbabu, S/o.J.Chandramouli, R/o. Thirumalagiri. 16 Sri Vasavi Industries, Kalwakurthy, rep. by Partner, Y.Ravi, S/o. Y.Eswaraiah, R/o.Kalwakurthy. 17 M/s.Ramakrishna Industries, Marchala, Mahboobnagar Dist. Rep. by Managing Partner, G.Pratap Reddy, S/o.G.Narayanreddy R/o.Marchala. 18 M/s.Raghurama Traders, Kalwakurthy, rep. by Prop. K.Narsimaiah, S/o. K.Antaiah, R/o.Kalwakurthy. 19 Sri Dhanalaxmi Rice Mill, Kalwakurthy, Mahboobnagar District, rep. by its Partner, P.Ekanadam,S/o.P.Lingaiah, R/o.Kalwakurthy. 20 M/s.Mahendra Traders, Kalwakurthy, rep. by its Prop. E.Balaswamy, S/o.E.Rangaiah, R/o.Kalwakurthy. 21 M/s.Annapurna Industries, Kalwakurthy, rep. by Prop. K.Shankaraiah, S/o.K.Ballingaiah, R/o. Kalwakurthy. 22 SreeGanesh Rice Mill, Kalwakurthy, rep. by Prop. J.Shankaraiah, S/o.Balnarayana, R/o. Kalwakurthy. 23 M/s.Sri Ambika Industries, Hyderabad X Road, Kalwakurthy, rep. by its Prop.J.Veeresh, S/o. J.Kondaiah, R/o.Kalwakurthy. 24 M/s.Venkateswara Traders, Kalwakurthy, rep. by Prop. K.Narsimulu, S/o. K.Ramaiah,R/o. Kalwakurthy. 25 M/s.Raja Rajeshwari Industries, Marchal Village, Kalwakurthy Mandal, rep. by its Partner S.Sudhakar. 26 Balaji Rice Mill, Veldanda, Mahboobnagar District, Rep. by Prop. V.Jodyanayak, S/o.V.Hanma, R/o.Veldanda. 27 Thirumala Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill, Kalwakurthy, Mahboobnagar District, rep.by Prop.A.Krishnaiah, S/o.A.Guruvaiah. 28 M/s.Balaji Bajrang Industries, Madgul Road, Amangal, Mahboobnagar District, rep. by Partner, C.Yadaiah, S/o.C.Muthyalu. 29 M/s.Vijaya Laxmi Modern Rice Mill, Telkapally, MahboobnagarDist., rep. by Prop. E.Parameshwaraiah, S/o.Balakishtaiah. 30 Sri LaxmiNarsimha Swamy Industries, Nagarkurnool, rep. by Partner, J.Shekaraiah, S/o. Lingaiah,R/o.Nagarkurnool. 31 Padmalaya Traders Commission Agent, Nagarkurnool, rep. Prop.K.Saiprasad, S/o.K.Chandra Mouli. 32 Sri Srinivasa Industries, Near Market Yard, Nagarkurnool, Mahboobnagar District, rep. by Partner, M.Srinivasulu, S/o.M.Bheemalingam, R/o.Nagarkurnool. 33 Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Industries, Achampet Road, Manthati, Naqgarkurnool, Mahboobnagar District, rep. by Prop. P.B.N.Swamy, S/o.P.Narayana, R/o.Nagarkurnool. 34 Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy M.B.R.M., Telkapally, Mahboobnagar Dist., rep. by Partner, J.Ramesh Babu, S/o.J.Chandramouli, R/o. Telkapally. AND .... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Mahboobnagar, rep. by its Secretary. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Badepally, Mahboobnagar Dist., rep. by its Secretary. 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Makthal, Mahboobnagar Dist., rep. by its Secretary. 6 The Agricultural Market Committee, Devarakadra, Mahboobnagar Dist., rep. by its Secretary. 7 The Agricultural Market Committee, Kalwakurthy, Mahboobnagar Dist., rep. by its Secretary. 8 The Agricultural Market Committee, Nagarkurnool, Mahboobnagar Dist., rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare that Rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2 (1)of the Actand strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice by therespondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the Petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 to 8 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24643 of 2003 Between: Manikanta Rice Corporation, Cent:Sri Rama Binny Modern Rice Mill, V.T.Palem, Miryalaguda-508207, Nalgonda District rep., by its Partner Nakirekanti Srinivas S/o. Ramalingaiah,R/o.Miryalaguda ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. rep., by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Marketing] Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, rep., by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P.[Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule -II of the Act and [2] to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the Respondents at the check Market Fee from the Petitioner is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the Act by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : MRS.NANDA R. RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25368 of 2003 Between: 1 S.Abdul Gafar Saheb Ahamadiya Rice Mill and Groundnut Factory rep.by S.Abdul Gafar Saheb S/o Late Sri Mohiuddin, aged 62 years, Alimabad Street, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. 2 Ahamadiya Traders, rep.by its Prop.Sri S.Md.Iliyas Basha, S/o Gafar Saheb, Rajampet Road, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, rep.by its Secretary. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a Writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus .....RESPONDENTS declaring the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act 1966 is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the Market Fee on the Rice milled from out Paddy if necessary by granting a declaration that the rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce an Live Stock) Markets Act 1966 Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents : MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO FOR R3 Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE WRIT PETITION NO : 27220 of 2003 Between: 1 M/s. Sapthagiri Industries, Thangallapally, Grain & General Merchants, rep by its partner G. Bhasker, S/o Rajaiah, R/o Siricilla, Karimnagar district 2 M/s. Sri Veeranjaneya Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Thangallapally rep by Partner J.Raghundha Rao, S/o Kishnarao R/o Sricila Karimnagar District. 3 M/s. Mahendra Traders, Sarampally, rep by Partner K. Vishnu Prasad, S/o Sathaiah, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 4 M/s. Abhaya Anjaneya Industries, Thangallapally, rep by its Partner Ch. Sathaiah S/o Rajesham, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District. 5 M/s. Sai Traders, Thangallapally, rep by Partner G. Ganesh, S/o Maruthirao R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 6 M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders, Thangallapally rep its by partner D. Ramgopal, S/o Lingaiah, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 7 M/s. Ravathi Traders, Siricialla rep by Partner Vishwesham, S/o Vittal, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 8 M/s. Nandhini Industries, Siricilla rep by Partner D. Ramgopal, S/o Chinna Narsaiah, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 9 M/s.Vijaya Lakshmi Par Boiled Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner B.Satyanarayana. 10 M/s. Sri Satyanarayana MR & OM Ragudu rep by Partner G. Venkatesham S/o Gangaiah, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 11 M/s. Vasavi Traders, Ragudu rep by its Partner B. Venkatesham, S/o Gangaiah, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 12 M/s. Sri Raghavendra Industries, Ragudu, rep by Partner C. Naresh, S/o Narayana, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 13 M/s. Shiva Ramakrishna Industries, Siricilla, rep by its Partner R.S. Kumar, S/o Buchaiah, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 14 M/s. Vasavi Industries Ragudu rep by its Partner, P. Nagaraju, S/o Rajalingam, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District 15 M/s. Mallikarjuna Traders, Ragudu rep by its Partner P. Srinivas, S/o Rajalingam, R/o Sricila Karimnagar District AND .... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, food and agriculture (Mktg.) Dept., Secretariat,Hyderabad rep by its Secretary. 2 The Director of Marketing, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad 3 The Agricultral Market Committee, Siricilla, Karimnagar District, rep by Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the (Agricultural Produce and Livestock0 Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Scheule-i of the Act and (2) to declare that stooping or otherwise obstruct the movement of Rice by the Respondnets at the check post or an other place, demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with section 12 of the Act by issuing writ of mandmaus or any other Writ, direction or Appropriate order in the circumstances Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 27449 of 2003 Between: Ramesh Traders, rep.by its sole proprietor, S/o.U.Chithambaraiah Kurnool Dist. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Food & Agricultural (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P.,Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Anantapur, Anantapur Dist. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Dhone, Kurnool Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P.(Agricultural produce and Livestock)Markets Act, 1966, and therefore, not in accordance with section 2 (1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the Respondents at the check posts or any other place demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioner, as illegal, and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not inaccordance with section 12 of the Act and pass. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.V.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr.BADANA BHASKAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 1801 of 2004 Between: Gayathri Paddy Processors, Sy.No.12 & 18, Bongloor (V),S/o.Venkaiah, Ibrahimpatnam (M), RR Dist.Karmanghat, RR Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P.,Food & Agrl.(Marketing)Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,rep.by its Secretary. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P.,Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Ibrahimpatnam,RR Dist.rep.by its Secretary. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the .....RESPONDENTS circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare that rice is not an agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the A.P.(Agricultural produce and Livestock) Markets Act,1966 and therefore not in accordance with section 2 (1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the Respondents at the check posts or any other place demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioner is illegal and beyound the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with section 12 of the Act by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 3327 of 2004 Between: 1 Raghavendra Rice & Dall Mill, Kuchipudi, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner, P.V.Rambabu, S/o.Venkatasubbarao. 2 Vamsikrishna Rice Mill, Jaggadiguntapalem, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Kodali Padmavathi, W/o.Rajagopalarao. 3 Sri Lakshmi Ganapthi Rice Cotton MIll, Contractor's Co., Tenali, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner, T.Mallikharjunarao,S/o.Venkateswar Rao. 4 Jayalakshmi Rice Working Company, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner NeelisettiVenkateswarlu, S/o.Balaiah. 5 Sri Banjaneya Rice Working Company, Morrispet, Tenali, rep. by its Proprietor K.Brahmanandam, S/o.Ramadasu. 6 Vijaya Rice Working Company, Tenali, rep. by its Partner M.Prasadarao, S/o. Lakshminarayana. 7 Sri Devi Traders, Tenali, rep. by its Partner M.Srinivasarao, S/o.Prasadarao, 8 Sri Lakshmi Narayana Rice Dall & Flour Mill, Conts: Sri Lakshmi Narayana Rice Wroking Co., Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner M.Chadnrasekhar, S/o.Subramanyam. 9 Ganesh Rice Mill, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner, P.Suribabu, S/o.Pitchayya. 10 Brundavan Rcie Mill. Angalakuduru, Tenali Mandal, rep. by its Proprietor I.Koteswararao, S/o. Satyanarayana, 11 Sri Vijaya Sai Traders, Edlapalli, Tsunduru Mandal, Guntur District, Rep. by Its Managing Partner, J.Umamaheswararao, S/o.Rangayya. 12 Manikantha Modern Rice Mill, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner D.Radhakrishnamurthy, S/o.Sambasivarao. 13 Sri Lakshmi Par Boiled Rice mill, Sultanabad, Tenali, rep. by its Proprietor G.Sambasivarao,S/o. Umamaheswararao. 14 Manikanta Rice Traders, Narasaraopet, rep. by its Managing Parnter Ch.Brahmaiah S/o. Narasimham. 15 Shiridi Sai Traders, Vemuru, rep. by its Partner Talluri Sivakumar S/o.Gurunadham. 16 Manikanta Rice Wroking Co., Vemuru, rep. by its Partner Gonuguntla Muralikrishan, S/o.Satyanarayana. 17 Nageswara Rice Working Co., Lock Road, Kollur, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner, Puvvada Ramachandrarao, S/o.Veera Raghavaiah. 18 Vijayadurga Rice Working Comapny, Kollur, Guntur Dist., rep. by its Proprietor S.V.V.L.Bhushana Rao S/o.Nageswara Rao. 19 Rajyalakshmi Rice & Flour Mill, Conts: Eswara Rice Working Company, Kollur Post & Mandal, Guntur Dist., rep. by its Managing.Partner Gummadi Raja Rajeswari, W/o.Umamaheswara Rao. 20 Kiran Traders, Lock Road, Kollur Mandal & Post, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor M..Basaveswara Rao, S/o.Venkateswararao. 21 Sree Vijayalakshmi Rice Working Company, Anantavarm, KolluruMandal & Post, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner, G.Hari Krishna, S/o.Suryanarayana. 22 Vijayalakshmi Ricemill, Chadalawada, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner G.Radhakrishnamurthy, S/o.Venkatasubbarao. 23 Murali Krishna Traders, Vemuru, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor T.Venkatasubbaiah, S/o.Subbaiah. 24 Sri Lakshmi Ganapthi Ricemill, Vemuru, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Badam Gopala Krishna Murthy,S/o.Venkateswaru. 25 Saibaba Rice Working Company, Vemuru, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner Movva Saibaba, S/o. Satyanarayana. 26 LakshmiAnnapurna Traders, Vemuru, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner T.Koteswara Rao S/o. Subbarao. 27 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Pedagadelavarru, Tsunduru Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor K.Narasimharao, S/o.Subbarao. 28 Sree Lakshmi Satyanarayana Rice & Flour Mill, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner K.Hariharaprasadarao,S/o.Subbarao. 29 Sri Venkateswara Rice & FlourMill, Munnangivaripalem, Tsundur Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner, E.Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Venkatareddy. 30 Lakshmi Rice Working Company, Angalakuduru, Tenali Mandal,rep.by its Managing PartnerV.Amarnadha,S/o.Sambasivarao 31 Sri Sambasiva Rice Mill, Tenali, rep. by its Proprietor T.D.Rao, S/o.Sambasivarao. 32 Venkata Rama Sai Rice Working Company, Chenchupet, Tenali, rep.by Idapalapati Ranganayakulu, S/o. Venkata Narasaiah. 33 Raghavendra Swamy Traders, Angalakuduru, Tenali Mandal, rep. by its Managing Partner K.S.Rajababu,S/o.Gopalakrishnaiah. 34 Sri Lakshmi Modern Rice Working Co., Balajiraopet, Tenali, rep. by its Proprietor K.L.Satyanarayana Gupta, S/o.Venkatamohanrao. 35 Manikanta Rice Working Company, Kuchipudi, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor Ravella Dasaradha Ramaiah, S/o.Venkatasubbaiah. 36 Sampurna Parvathi Rice Mill, Kuchipudi, rep. by its Proprietor Y.Ramamohanrao S/o.Pedalingayya Chowdary. 37 Sri Lakshmi Durga Rice Mill, Conts: Jayasri Rice Working Co., Chinaparimi-522313, rep. by its Managing Partner, D.Brahma Reddy S/o.Subbareddy. 38 Annapurna Rice Mill, Chinaparimi, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner A.Rajeeva Reddy S/o.Subbareddy, 39 Sri Venkateswara Ruice Mill, Conts. Vijayalakshmi Rice Working Co., Chinaparimi, Tenali Mandal, rep. by its Partner M.Venkatabasivireddy S/o.Venkatareddy. 40 Prasad Rice & Flour Mill, Pedaravuru, Tenali, rep. by Prop. Paladugu SeshagiriRao, S/o. Subbarao. 41 Vijayalakshmi Boiled Rice Mill, Burripalem Road, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner T.Siva Kumar S/o.Narayanamurthy. 42 Radha Krishna Rice & Dall Mill, Burripalem Road, Tenali, rep. by its Proprietor N.Radhakrishnamurthy, S/o.Nagabhushanam. 43 Vighneswara Rice Working Company, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner N.Venkateswarlu, S/o. Balaiah, 44 Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice & Flour Mill, Conts: Nukala Satyanarayana & Co., Tenali, rep. by its Partner, B.Chandrasekhar, S/o.Sivaramaiah. 45 Sri Adilakshmi Kameswara Rice Mill, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner, N.Satyanarayana, S/o.Nagabhushanam. 46 Sobha Parboiled Rice Mill, Sultanabad, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner, G.M.K.Manohar, S/o.Sambasivarao. 47 Janatha Rice Mill, Cont: Sreenivasa Rice Working Co., Nehru Road, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner D.J.Kumar, S/o.Sambasivarao. 48 Ramachandra Rice Working Co., Kothapet, Tenali, rep. by its Proprietor N.V.L.Narayana, S/o.N.Radhakrishna Murthy. 49 Lalitha Maheswara Rice Mill, Conts: Maddula Venkateswara Rao & Co., Intur (P.O.) Guntur Dt., rep. by its Managing Partner, M.Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Nagabhushanarao. 50 Mahalakshmi Rice Working Company, Jandhayalavari Street, Ramalingeswarapet, Tenali, Guntur District, rep. by its Managing Partner Dasu Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Sambasivarao. 51 Ratnam Rice Mill, Cont: Vijayalakshmi Rice Working Co., Tenali, rep. by its Partner M.Subba Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu. 52 Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Rice Mill, Rly. Station Road, Tenali, rep. by its Proprietor K.Suryanarayana, S/o.Koteswararao. 53 Sri Subhodaya Rice & Flour Mill, Cont:Sri Venkateswara Rice Working Co., Pandurangapet, Tenali, rep. by its Managing Partner K.Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Rataiah. 54 Radhakrishna Rice Working Company, Pandurangapet, Tenali, rep.by its Proprietor V.Radhakrishnamurthy,S/o.Seshagirirao. 55 Sai Mandeep Rice Working Co., Tenali, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor T.Satyanaqrayana, S/o.Mallikarjunarao, 56 Mahalakshmi Rice Traders, Morrispet, Tenali, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner K.Yagneswara Rao, S/o.Seetharamaiah. 57 Sree Seetha Ramanjaneya Rice Mill, Morrispet, Tenali, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner, G.Venkatapandurangarao, S/o.Venkateswarlu. AND .... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Agricutural Market Committee, Tenali, Guntur District, rep. by its Secretary. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Duggirala, Guntur District, rep. by its Secretary. 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, represented by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice, Paddy & Pulses and other Agricultural Produce bythe Respondents atany check posts or any other place in the State and demanding and collecting Market Fee from the Petitioners before determination of liability ismade under Section 12-A, 12-B and 12- C of the Act is illegal, and without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the A.P. (Agricultural Produceand Livestock) Market Act, 1966 by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 to 5 : Mr.POSANI VENKATESWARLU (SC FOR AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEES) WRIT PETITION NO : 3328 of 2004 Between: 1 Vishnupriya Rice Working Company, Isukapalli, Repalle, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner, S.Pardhasaradhi, S/o Gurnadharao, 2 Nageswara Rice Working Co., Repalle, Guntur District rep., by its Partner A.Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Purnakoteswara Rao 3 Sri Ravindra Rice Working Company, Repalle, rep., by its Partner Seemakurthi Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Venkatasubbarao 4 Vijaya Durga Rice Working Company, Repalle, rep., by its Managing Partner Koneru Venkata Naga Sambasiva Rao, S/o Subbarao 5 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Repalle, rep., by its Managing Partner D.Sambasiva Rao, s/o Venkateswarlu. 6 Geethika Rice Working Co., Repalle, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor N.Ananda Kishore, s/o N.Koteswararao, 7 Sri Ranganadha Rice Working Co., Repalle, rep., by its Partner B.Sreeramachandrarao, s/o Gopalakrishnaiah. 8 Sri Raghavendra Rice Industries, Vuyyuruvaripalem, Repalle rep., by its Proprietor K.Prabhakararao, S/o Venkatramaiah 9 Sri Padmalaya Rice Mill, Vuyyuruvaripalem, Bethapudi P.O.,Repalle Mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner M.Mallikharjuna Prasad S/o Venkat Veeranjaneyulu. 10 Sri Vasavi Rice Working Company, Vemurivaristreet, Repalle, Guntur District rep., by its Partner T.Nageswararao, S/o V.V.Purnachandrarao. 11 Sri Radha Krishna Rice Mill, Conts:Padmavathi Rice Working Co., Repalle, rep., by its Managing Partner V.Sambasivarao, S/o V.Lakshmikanta Rao. 12 Raghavendra Rice Working Company, Bethapudi, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner Katragadda Pamidath, S/o. Ramakrishnarao. 13 Sree Durga Rice Working Co., Conts:Sri Lakshmi Durga Rice Working Co., Repalle rep., by its Managing Partner V.Venkateswararao, S/o Radhakrishnamurthy. 14 Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Rice Mill, Kanagala, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District rep., by Managing Partner G.Balasita Ramarao, S/o Subbarao. 15 Sri Vijaya Durga Sai Rice Working Company, Gudavalli, Cherukupalli rep., by its partner M.V.Ratnarao, S/o Nancharaiah 16 Sri Bhavani Rice Working Co.,Kammavaripalem, Nalluripalem, P.O., Repalle Mandal,Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor.K.Venkateswararao, S/o Krishnarao. 17 Sri Venkateswara Rice Working Company, Galivaripalem, Guntur District, rep., by its Managing Partner B.Kamaiah, S/o Venkateswarlu 18 Sri Suryanarayana Rice Mill, Bhattiprolu, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor M.V.Suryanarayana, S/o Prasadrao. 19 P.M.R.Traders, Nagaram, rep., by its Managing Partner P.Venkateswararao, S/o Mastanrao. 20 Sri Nageswara Rice & Flour Mill, Nagaram Mandal, rep., by its Proprietor K.Anjaiah, S/o Pedaankamma. 21 Venkateswara Traders, Bhattiprolu, Guntur District rep., by its Partner Vanam Hanumandas, S/o Venkateswarlu. 22 Vighneswara Traders, Pedapulivarru, Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner K.V.Krishnamurthy, S/o Venkataratnam. 23 Imamkhan Rice Working Company, Nagaram, Guntur District rep., by its Partner Pathan Ghousekhan, S/o Imamkhan 24 Sri Lakshmi Muralimohan Rice and Flour Mill, Cherukupalli, Guntur Dt., rep., by its Partner A.satyanarayana, S/o Venkateswarlu. 25 Parvathi Parameswara Rice Mill, Cherukupalli, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor N.Kasi, S/o Nagendram. 26 Sri Srinivasa Rice Traders, Cherukupalli, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner M.Janardhana Rao, S/o M.Kotaiah 27 Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Arumbaka, Cherukupalli, P.O.(M), rep., by its Partner Swarna Sankararao, S/o Subbarao. 28 Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, Cont:Sri Ramakrishna Rice Working Co., Cherukupalli, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner K.Sampath Babu, S/o Ramakrishnaiah. 29 Sri Venkatateswara Traders, Nadimpalli, Guntur District rep., by its Partner K.Venkateswararao, S/o Koteswararao 30 Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill, Ponnapalli, Cherukupalli Mandal, rep., by its Partner Sudheer Babu, S/o Babu. 31 Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Cherukupalli, rep., by its Partner Ch.Sitaramanjaneya Gupta, s/o Subba Rao, 32 Sai Srujan Traders, Gullapalli, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District, rep., by its Proprietor T.Chandra Mouli, S/o Ankaiah 33 Sri Lakshmi Satyanarayana Traders, Cherukupalli, Guntur District, rep., by its Managing Partner T.Vallabha Rao, S/o Sivaiah ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government, of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Repalle, Guntur District rep., by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice, Paddy & Pulses and other Agricultural Produce by the Respondents at any check posts or any other place in the state and demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners before determination of liability is made under Section 12-A, 12-B & 12-C of the Act is illegal, and without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3345 of 2004 Between: 1 Sri Ramachandra Vara Prasad Rice Mill Company, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Partner G.V. Krishnaiah S/o. Venkata Subbaiah R/o. Nidubrolu. 2 Sri Venkata Ramana Rice Mill, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Partner B.V. Chowdary S/o. Subba Rao R/o. Nidubrolu 3 Sri Durga Rice Mill Company, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Partner B.V. Chowdary S/o. Subba Rao R/o. Nidubrolu 4 Sri Ravi Vara Prasad Rice Working Co., Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Partner A. Vara Prasad Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, R/o. Nidubrolu 5 Sri Vijayalakshmi Rice Mill, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Partner K. Sanjeeva Vara Prasad, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, R/o. Nidubrolu 6 Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Partner K. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, R/o. Nidubrolu 7 Sri Venkateswara General Traders, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor K. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, R/o. Nidubrolu 8 Puvvada Nageswara Rao, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Prop. Puvvada Nageswara Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Nidubrolu 9 Sri Kanaka Durga Traders, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor V. Giribabu, S/o. Ramakrishna. R/o. Nidubrolu 10 Sri Bhagya Lakshmi Rice Mill, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Partner D.Padma S/o. Yesubu, R/o. Nidubrolu 11 Tejaswy Seva Sangam, Aluru, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by Its Secretary, P. Manidhar s/o. Nageswara Rao, R/o. Aluru. 12 Sri Sairam Traders, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Partner Ch. Chandersekhara Rao, S/o. Raghavaiah, R/o. Nidubrolu 13 Sri Nagalakshmi Rice Mill, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Partner K. Subba Rao S/o. Radhakrishna murthy, R/o. Nidubrolu 14 Sri Balaji Trading Company, Nidubrolu,Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor M. Chandramohan S/o. Subbarao, R/o. Nidubrolu 15 M.S.R. Rice Industries, Kasukarru, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District, rep., by its Partner, M.Ramakrishna Rao, S/o. Sree Ramulu, R/o. Kasukarru. 16 Sri Raghavendra Rice Mill, Kasukarru, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep. by its Managing Partner M. Seshagiri Rao, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, R/o. Kasukarru. 17 Neelisetty Rice Industries, Kasukarru, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Partner N. Satyanarayana, S/o. Guravaiah, R/o. Nidubrolu 18 C.S.R.Rice Industries, Chintalapudi, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor P.Venugopala Rao, S/o. P.Malakondaiah, 19 Balaji Par Boiled & Raw Rice Mill, Chintalapudi, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Partner K.S.N. Murthy, S/o. Subba Rao, 20 Sri Venkateswara Traders, Machavaram, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep. by Ch. Madhusudhanarao, S/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Machavaram. 21 Sri Durga Traders, Mulukuduru, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor M.Venkata Suba Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Mulukuduru. 22 Sri Annapurna Rice Traders, Nanduru, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep. by its proprietor A.Nageswara Rao S/o. A. Satya Narayana, R/o. Nanduru. 23 Sri Venkata Satya Sai Traders, Ponnur, Guntur District rep., by its Partner G.Siva Satyanarayana, S/o. Pullaiah, R/o. Ponnuru. 24 Sri Lakshmi Sujata Traders, Ponnur, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor Avvaru Anjaneyulu S/o. A. Sambasiva Rao, R/o. Ponnuru. 25 Sita Rama Rice Mill, Munipalle, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Partner V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Chowdaramma, R/o. Munipalle. 26 Sri Dhana Lakshmi Rice Traders, Kasukarru, Ponnur, Guntur rep., by its Managing Partner K. Hanumantha Rao, S/o. K. Ramakotaiah, R/o. Kasukarru. 27 Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Rice Mill, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner K. Sambasiva Rao S/o. K. Venkatasubbaiah. 28 Sri Rama Chandra Rice Industries, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor V.Subba Rao, S/o. Dasaiah. 29 Sri Satyanaraya Traders, Kattempudi, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District rep. by Partner K. Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkata Rao. 30 Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice Mill, Kattempudi, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner A. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. Kattempudi. 31 Sri Sitaramanjaneya Raw Rice & Boiled Mill, P.T.Parru, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner Ch. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Nagabhushanam. 32 Sri Sai Traders, Vellaluru, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner A. RAghava Reddy, S/o. Veer Reddy. 33 Sri Devi Rice Mill, Vellaluru, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District, rep., by its Managing Partner, K. Venkataramana, S/o.K.nagendra Rao. 34 Sri Srinivasa Rice Mill, Thottempudi, Tsundar Mandal, Guntur rep., by its Proprietor A.Koti Reddy S/o.Reddy. 35 Sri Radha Swamy Rice Mill, Inturu, Amarathluru mandal, Guntur rep., by its Partner A. Venkateswarlu S/o. Kotaiah, 36 Sri Rama Rice Mill, Chinalingayapalem, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor K.Venkateswarlu, S/o. Raghunadha Rao, 37 M.S.R. Dall Mill, Kasukarru, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor G. Subbarao, S/o. G. Anjaneyulu. 38 Sri Durga Traders, Ponnur, Ponnur mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Proprietor M.Basavaraju, S/o. Bhimaraju. 39 C.S.R. Rice Mill, Lakshmipuram, Kakumanumandalam, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner P. Venugopala Rao, S/o. P. Malakondaiah, 40 Sri Rama Rice Mill, near Vinayaka Temple, G.B.C. Road, Ponnur, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District rep., by its Partner K. Venkateswarlu S/o.K.V.Rao. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of A.P. rep., by Secretary, Food and Agriculture[Marketing] Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur, Guntur District. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice, Paddy and Pulses and other Agricultural Produce by the respondents at any check posts or any other place in the State .....RESPONDENTS and demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners before determination of liability is made under Section 12-A, 12-B & 12-C of the Act is illegal, and without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the A.P.[Agrl. Produce and Livestock] Market Act,1966 by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3616 of 2004 Between: 1 Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Traders, rep. by its Proprietor T.Venkata Suresh, S/o.T.Venkata Subbaiah, R/o.1/8, Pathakadapa, Kadapa. 2 Sri Sai Prasad Food Traders, rep. by its Proprietor C.Satya Narayana Prasad, S/o.Subbarayudu, R/o.10-103, Nellore Road, Badvel, Kadapa District. 3 Yellanuru Subbarayudu, S/o.Pitchaiah, 4 YSr Oil & Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner Y.Subba Rao, S/o.Subbarayudu, R/o.10-294, Nellore Road, Badvel, Kadapa District. 5 Sri Sai Ganesh Traders, rep. by its Proprietor K.Nagaraju, S/o. K.Ramachandraiah Chetty, R/o.6/663, Sankarapuram, Kadapa. 6 Sri Sai Balaji Traders, rep. by its Proprietor Smt.K.Lalitha Kumari, W/o.K.Ramesh Babu, r/o.6/757, Sankarkapuram, Kadapa. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Kadapa, rep. by its Secretary. 4 The Agricultural Marketing Committee, Badvel, Kadapa District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the lnature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in notifying rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market fee under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents not to collect any market fee on the Rice from the petitioner/sellers either by demand or by way of obstructing the lorries at Check Posts and other vehicles carrying Rice in the District, if necessary declaring that the Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning fo the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.ARIFULLA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.BADANA BHASKAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4343 of 2004 Between: 1 Sri Nagendra Trading Company, rep.by its Proprietor, B.Muni Krishnaiah, S/o B.Gopal Rao. R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 2 G.R.C.Modern Rice Mill, rep.by its Proprietor, G.Ramchandrudu, S/o Sri Ramulu, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 3 Mitta Sambasivaiah, S/o Venkata Krishnaiah, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 4 Paladi Subba Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 5 Sri Lakshmi Sai Ram Traders, rep.by its Proprietor, P.Suresh Babu, S/o Krishna Murthy, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 6 Polepalle Subba Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 7 Bhupalam Uday Kumar, S/o Pedda Venkatasubbaiah, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 8 Sree Raja Sekhara Trading Company, Rep.by its Proprietor, C.Raja Sekhar Reddy, S /o Narayana Reddy, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 9 Sri Vasavi Rice Mill, rep.by its Proprietor, P.Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Subbanaidu, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 10 Sri Surya Modern Rice Mill, rep.by its Proprietor M.Varaprasad Reddy, S/o Obul Reddy, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 11 Prakash Traders, rep.by its Proprietor, R.Jaya Prakash, S/o Venkataswamy, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 12 Sri Swamy Ayyappa Rice Mill, rep.by its Proprietor, M.Venkata Subba Reddy, S /o Narayana Reddy, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 13 Sri Veera Brhamendra Mini Rice Mill, rep.by its Proprietor, C.Veera Narayana Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 14 Sree Sudha Modern Rice Mill, rep.by its Proprietor, B.Venkateswarlu, S/o Chinchaiah, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. 15 Karthik Traders, rep.by its Proprietor, O.Bala Krishna, S/o Chinna Naganna, R/o Proddutur, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P.rep.by its Secretary, Food and Agricultural (Marketing) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Proddatur, Cuddapah District - 516 360, Represented by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as Agricultural Produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out of paddy, if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P.Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) Market Act 1966. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.KARNAMRAMESH Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : Mr.BADANA BHASKAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5375 of 2004 Between: 1 Sri Vishnupriya Rice Industries , Sagar Road, Miryalguda-508 207 Nalgonda District, rep. by Cheedalla Prasad son of Omkaralu. 2 Ravi Traders , Food Grains & General Merchants, Miryalguda -508 207, rep. by Garine Narasimha Rao son of Peraiah. 3 Vasundhara Traders,Gandhinagar Miryalguda -508 207, rep. by Geuru Vidyasagar son of Venkata Narasiah. 4 Gayathri Rice Industries,Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, rep. by M.Ramakrishnarao son of Ramanurthy. AND ..... PETITIONERS 1 The Secretrary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing ) Department, Secretariat, hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Govovernment of A.P, Hyderabad 3 The Agricultural Market Committee Miryalguda, Nalgonda rep by Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to declare that Rice is not an Argicultural Produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of the AP. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the Respondents at the Check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting market Fee from the Petitioner is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with section 12 of the Act by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the cases. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 6947 of 2004 Between: 1 Mallikarjuna & Co, rep. by its Partner, M.Mallikarjuna S/o Peddaiah, Near RTC Bus Stand, Dharmavaram. 2 Srirama Chitambarappa Setty & Sons, rep. by S. Chitambara Babu S/o S.Aswathnarayana, Near Old Bus Stand, Dharmavaram. 3 Sri Laxmivenkateswara Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner K.Srinivasa Reddy S/o K. Venkat Reddy, Pothukunta Road, Dharmavaram. 4 Ganga Bhavani Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner M. Suresh Babu S/o M.V. Narayana Setty, Car Street, Dharmavaram. 5 Vijaya Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner S. Raja Reddy S/o Obul Reddy, Near R.T.C. Bus Stand, Dharmavaram. 6 Arigalla Pothanna Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner A. Ramesh Babu S/o A. Pothanna, Bangalore Road, Dharmavaram. 7 Tallam Nagaraju RiceMill, rep. by its Proprietor T. Nagaraju S/o T. Balaiah, Market Street, Bangalore Road, Dharmavaram. 8 Venkataramana Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner Y. Srinivasulu S/o Y. Adinarayana, Tadipatri Road, Dharmavaram. 9 Padmavathi Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner, D. Govindarajulu S/o D. Venkatesu, Tadipatri Road, Dharmavaram. 10 Subrahmaneswara Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner,P.Narayana Murthy, S/o P.Krishna Murthy, Near R.T.C. Bus Stand, Dharmavaram. 11 Sri Raghavendra Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, T. Venkatesulu S/o T. Chandrappa, Tadipatri Road, Dharmavaram. 12 Sri Manjunatha Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner,N. Sadananda S/o N. Anjaneyulu, Parigi Road, Hindupur. 13 Gourishankar Groundnut and Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor P.V. Sunder Raj, S/o P.R. Venugopalaiah Setty, D.No. 5-145-1-A, M.G. Road, Kadiri. 14 M/s Kwality Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, T. Shamsheer S/o T. Abdul Gaffar Sab, Flat No. S-13, Industrial Estate, Kadiri. 15 Srirama & Co, rep. by its Proprietor K. Reddeppa Setty, S/o K. Venkataramanappa, D.No. 11/199, Car Street, Kadiri. 16 Ravisankar Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Partner, M. Mallikarjuna S/o M. Peddaiah, Near R.T.C. Bus Stand, Dharmavaram. 17 Bharath Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, N. Phanisekhar Gupta S/o N. Venkata Subbaiah, Near Railway Gagte, Tadpatri. 18 Sapthagiri Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, K. Aswini Devi W/o K. Venkataswamy, Yellanur Road, Tadpatri. 19 Sirigapuram Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, K. Satyanarayana, S/o Hanumanthaiah, Yellanur Road, Tadpatri. 20 Sri Balalji Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, B.Nagaragini W/o B. Ravikumar, Gannevaripalli Colony, Nandyal Road, Tadpatri, 21 Sri Anjanadri Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, M. Radha W/o Purushotham, Gannevaripalli Colony, C.B. Road, Tadpatri, 22 Vijay Bhaskar Rice Mill, rep. its Proprietor, P.A. Vijaybhaskar Gupta S/o P.R. Anjaneyuulu Setty, Kalluru R.S. 23 Rahul Traders,rep. by its Partner, P.A. Vijayabhaskar Gupta S/o P.R. Anjaneyulu Setty, Kallur RS. 24 Sri Venkateswara Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, P. Nagappa, S/o P. Thimmappa, Kallur R.S. 25 Sri Mallikarjuna Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor K. Narappa Reddy S/o Peddanarayana Reddy, Kallur R.S. 26 Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Prioprietor, P. Tirupalu, S/o P. Venkatappa, Kallur R.S. 27 Sri Vasavi Modern Rice Mill, rep. by its Proprietor, P. Tkirupalu, S/o P. Venkatappa, Kallur R.S. 28 Sri Raghavendra Modern Rice Mill, Proprietor, C. Sivarami Reddy, S/o C. Narayana Reddy, Pamidi. 29 Maruthi Industries, rep. by its Partner, L. Ashok Kumar, S/o Seethaiah, I.D.A. Gooty Road, Guntakal. (All belongs to Ananthapur District). AND ..... PETITIONERS

3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The Agricultural Market Committee, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District, rep. by its Secretary,.

4. The Agricultural Market Committee, Hindupur, Ananthapur District, rep. by its Secretary.

5. The Agricultural Market Committee, Kadiri, Ananthapur District, rep. by its Secretary.

6. The Agricultural Market Committee, Tadpatri, Ananthapur District, rep. by its Secretary.

7. The Agricultural Market Committee, (Sub Yard, Kalluru R.S.), Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, rep. by its Secretary.

8. The Agricultural Market Committee, Gooty, Ananthapur District, rep. by its Secretary.

9. The Agricultural Market Committee, Guntakal, Ananthapur District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in notifying the Rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market Fee under the provisions of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act 1966 is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the Market Fee on the Rice milled from out Paddy if necessary by granting a declaration that the rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. (Agricultural produce and Live Stock) Markets Act 1966. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No. 3, 4 & 6 to 9 : MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : MR.P.BHANU PRAKASH WRIT PETITION NO : 7711 of 2004 Between: Rajalakshmi Raw & Par Boiled Industries, Mangalpally, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Government of A.P.rep.by its Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Agricultural Market Committee, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Secretary. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court be pleased to declare that rice is not an Agricultural produce and therefore item 2 of Schedule-II of .....RESPONDENTS the A.P.(Agricultural produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and therefore not in accordance with section 2(1) of the Act and strike down item 2 of Schedule-II of the Act and (2) declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of rice by the respondents at the check posts or any other place, demanding and collecting market fee from the petitioner is illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with section 12 of the Act by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mrs.NANDA R.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8068 of 2004 Between: 1 Vigheswara Modern Rice Mills, Guntur-34, rep. by its Managing Partner K.Janardhana Rao S/o K.Mallikhar Junarao [age 70], R/o.Guntur. 2 Sapthagiri Rice Mill, Sivareddipalem, Guntur-9, rep.by its Proprietor P.Sivarami Reddy S/o Gurva Reddy [aged 50], R/o. Guntur. 3 Gopikrishna Rice Mill, Kothapet , Guntur, rep. by its Proprietor K.Koteswararo S/o Pedaguravaiah [aged 47], R/o. Guntur 4 Bhumatha Rice Industries, Etukur Road, Guntur –3, rep. by its Proprietor B.Sreenivasa Prasad S/o Venkata Ramarao, [aged 31], R/o. Guntur 5 Sri Sai Durga Rice Mill, Opp.Kanakadurgamma Temple Near Paramayee, Guntur , Kakani Road, Guntur, rep.by its Partner P.Srinivasarao S/o Venkateswarlu [aged 30], R/o. Guntur 6 Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice & Floor Mill, Gorantla, Guntur rep.by its Proprietor J.V.Subbarao S/o China Rattaiah [aged 45], R/o.Guntur. 7 Bhargava Sai Rice Mill, Shop Employees colony, Mangalagiri Road, Guntur-1, rep.by its Partner P.Srinivasarao S/o Sivaramkrishna [aged 32], R/o.Guntur. 8 Balaji Rice & Flour Mill, Near Golusula Bavi, Sangadigunta, Guntur-3 rep.by its Managing Partner V.Sri Kantha S/o Prabhakararao,[aged 31] R/o.Guntur 9 Sri Anjaneya Rice & Flour Mill, Gorantla, Guntur Mandal Guntur Distict, rep by its Proprietor Ch.Anjaneyulu S/o Venkatakrishnaiah [aged 70 ] R/o.Guntur. 10 Siva Rama Rice Mill, Sitaramanagaram, Main Road, Guntur -1 rep by its Managing Partner B.Ch.L.Guravaiah S/o Saidayya [aged 55] R/o.Guntur. 11 M/s Jai Andhra Rice & Floor Mill, D.No.4-4-3, Koritipadu, Guntur –7 rep.by its Managing Partner K.M.Rao S/o K.Veerabhardraro [aged 36], R/o.Guntur. 12 Sri Venkata Lakshmiprasanna Rice Mill, Pattabhipuram Main Road, Guntur rep.by its Proprietor Gogineni Koteswararao S/o Venkatasubbarao, [aged 55] R/o.Guntur. 13 Sri Dhanalakshmi Rice Mill, Sangadigunta, Ponnuru Road] Opp.Power house Guntur, rep. by its Proprietor Bommisetty Seshgirirao S/o Narayanarao, [aged 35], R/o.Guntur. 14 Vijayalakshmi Rice & Floor Mill, Number-Padakakani Mancalam, Guntur Dist, rep.by its Partner V.Nagireddy S/o.Subbareddy,age:30 yrs, R/o.Guntur 15 Sai Balaji Rice Mill, Door No. 16-33-9, Nandiyalugu Road, Old Guntur, Guntur-1,rep. by its Proprietor M. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Manumaiah, age : 50 Years, R/o. Guntur. 16 Vamshi Krishna Modern Rice Mill, Amaravathi Road, Guntur-34, rep. by its proprietor J. Umamaheswara Rao S/o. China Rattaiah, age : 30 years, R/o. Guntur. 17 Vasavi Traders, Edlapadu, Guntur District, rep. by its Partner B. Satyanarayana S/o. Venkataratnam, R/o. Guntur. 18 Srinivasa Traders, Edlapadu, Guantur, rep. by its Proprietor N. Srinivasa Lalithababu 19 Madhusudhana Traders, Chintalapudi, Ponnur Mandalam, Guntur District, rep. by its proprietor T. Sundararao. 20 Sri Srinivasa Rice and General Marchant, Ponnur, Guntur District, rep. by its proprietor L. Srinivasarao, Guntur District. 21 Sri Srinivasa Rice Mill, Ganapavaram, Nadendla Mandalam, Guntur, rep. by its Proprietor G.S.Rao, R/o.Ganapavaram. 22 Sri Sainath Rice Mill, Pasumarru, Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District, rep. by its proprietor N.V. Mangarao, R/o. Pasumarru. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Direactor of Marketiang, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Argiculatural Market Committee,Guntur,Guntur District, rep.by its Secretary. 4 The Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur, Guntur District, rep. by its Secretary. 5 The Agricultural Market Committee, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court be pleased to declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice, Paddy & pulses and other Agriculatural Produce by the Respondents at any check posts or any other place in the State and demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners before determination of liability is made under section 12-A, 12-B and 12- C of the Act is illegal, and without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with section 12 of the AP.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction, or appropriate order in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.D.SUDHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 5 : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS). WRIT PETITION NO : 10733 of 2004 Between: 1 Sreedhar Traders, rep by its Proprietor, D. Sreedhara Rao S/o D. Raja, Paddy & Rice Merchants, Mydukur Road, Proddutur. 2 Sri Lakshmi traders, rep by its Proprietor, C. Narasimulu, S/o Kondappa, Hindu, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 3 Kamisetty Traders, rep by its Proprietor, K.C. Subbaraidu S/o Kondappa, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 4 Rajya Lakshmi traders, rep by its Proprietor, K.Satyam, S/o Subbaraidu, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 5 M/s. Nagaruru Sankaraiah Setty, rep by its Proprietor, N.V. Ram Subbaiah S/o Nagaiah, Jammalamadugu Kadapa District 6 Ravi Traders, rep by its Proprietor, G. Ramulu, S/o Chennakesavulu, Jammalamadugu Kadapa District 7 M/s. Mani Enterprises, rep by its Proprietor, R. Subrahmanyam, S/o Subbaraidu, 8/64, Mydukur Road, Proddutur-516 361 8 Sri T. Jayalakshmi Traders, rep by its Proprietor, T.K. Narsimulu S/o Kondayya, Mydukur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District. 9 Sri Vasavi Trading Company, rep by its Proprietor, K. Nagamani Devi W/o K. Venkateswarla Gupta, 5/255-A, Vijayanagaram Street, Proddutur- Kadapa District. 10 Sree Ganesh Trading & Co., rep by its Proprietor B.C.V Narayana, S/o Venkatasubbaya, D. NO. 9396-B, Mydukur Road, Proddutur. AND ..... PETITIONER(S) 1 The Government of A.P., rep by Secrtary, Food and Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Buildings, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad 3 The Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Proddutur, Kadapa District. 4 The Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Jammalamadugu Post, Kadapa District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of therespondent in notifiying the Rice as Agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of Market fee under the provision of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock) markets Act, 1966 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to pay the market fee on the rice milled from out to paddy if necessary by granting a declaration that Rice is not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Live Stock)Market Act 1966. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.KARNAMRAMESH Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr.BADANA BHASKAR RAO COMMON ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, J) There are two sets of Writ Petitions in this batch of Writ Petitions. Both sets have been heard together. There are some common questions of law and are being disposed of by this common order. For the one set, Writ Petition No.3327 of 2004 shall be taken as a representative writ petition and for other set, Writ Petition No.22867 of 2003 shall be taken as a representative writ petition. Both the sets of writ petitions revolve around the interpretations to be placed on various provisions of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In Writ Petition No.3327 of 2004, the following prayer has been made; “To declare that stopping or otherwise obstructing the movement of Rice, Paddy & Pulses and other Agricultural Produce by the Respondents at any check posts or any other place in the State and demanding and collecting Market Fee from the petitioners before determination of liability is made under Section 12-A, 12-B and 12-C of the Act is illegal, and without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Rule 75 and not in accordance with Section 12 of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or appropriate order in the circumstances and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The petitioners in this case contended that they are licensees under Section 7 of the Act. They submitted that they are dealers in rice, paddy, pulses and some other agricultural products. The petitioners further contended that they buy and sell rice, paddy, pulses and in terms of Section 12 of the Act, they are liable to pay Market fee when the purchaser is not identified. During the course of trade, the petitioners purchase or sell various agricultural products and during these transactions, they have necessarily to transport these products from one place to the other within State as well as outside the State. The petitioners questioned the action of respondents in stopping the vehicles during the transport at various check points set up by them. They also questioned the respondents’ power to demand and collect market fee on the agricultural products. The collection of fee at check posts without any determination with regard to the liability and before time expires for filing the return for assessment, was illegal. It is the case of petitioners that the respondents are doing an illegal act by obstructing the free movement of agricultural commodity by stopping the vehicles at check posts established under Rule 75 of the Rules framed under the Act. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent amended Rule 74 of the Rules by G.O.Ms.No.459 Agriculture and Cooperation (Mktg.II) Dept., dated 23.12.2002, by which it was declared that fee if paid to a market committee, shall not be collected by any other market committee in the State, subject to production of proof of payment of market fee. It is contended that by this amendment, the effect of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta V. Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, was sought to be nullified. Counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent-Secretary of Agricultural Market Committee. It is submitted that the Act was enacted to regulate the purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and produce of livestock for the benefit and to protect interest of the farmers/producers and to create an atmosphere of having competitive price for the produce by eliminating the middle men and unholy trade practices. The State Government exercising powers under section 33 of the Act, framed Rules, 1969 and in terms of Section 3 of the Act, the Government issued notification vide G.O.Ms.No.2095 dated 29.10.1968 and published it in Gazette on

07.11.1968, declaring the notified area and notified agricultural produce, livestock and produce of livestock as specified in Schedule II appended the Act. Thereafter, the Government issued notifications declaring the notified market area and the notified agricultural produce in respect of different market committees. As per said notifications, rice is one of the notified agricultural produces. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 12 of the Act, the Market Committee has power to levy market fee on the notified agricultural produce purchased or sold in the notified market area on such rate as specified in the bye-laws. By-law 24 of the bye-laws lays down that the Market Committee was entitled to collect market fee at the rate of 1 per cent on advalorem basis. Sub-Section 2 of Section 12 of the Act contemplates that the market fee shall be paid by the purchaser of the produce and proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 12 of the Act lays down that where the purchaser was not identifiable, the fee shall be payable by the seller and as per Section 12(E) of the Act, any trader objecting the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority, can file an appeal before the Regional Joint Director of Marketing. It is further contended that explanation 1 of Section 12 of the Act contemplates that all the notified agricultural produce taken out of a notified market area, shall unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been purchased or sold within that area. In terms of Rule 75, no person shall transport any notified agricultural produce purchased or sold in the notified market area from the limits thereof except on production of receipt for payment of prescribed fee with the market committee concerned and the authorized employees of the market committee has the power to stop and check the vehicles. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that unless there is an assessment, there cannot be any demand and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents submit that this question has already been decided by this Court in a judgment reported in M/s.Godavari Trading Company, Palakol and another Vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol and others. This is a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Before going to this judgment, it will be necessary to go through the scheme of the Act as far as this argument is concerned. Section 2 of the Act pertains to the definitions. Section 3 pertains to the declaration of notified areas. Under Section 4, the market committees are constituted and declaration of notified market area is made. Under Section 5, the composition of market committees is laid down. Under Section 7, trading etc., of notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock in the notified area is prescribed except under and in accordance with the conditions of a license granted by the market committee. Section 12 gives the power under which the fee can be levied by the market committee. It reads as under; “12. Levy of fees by the market committee :- (1) The market committee shall fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area *[at such rate, not exceeding *[two rupees] as may be specified in the bye-laws] for every hundred rupees of the aggregate amount the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is purchased or sold, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration. for which Explanation I :- For the purposes of this section, all notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock taken out of a notified market area shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area. Explanation II :- In the determination of the amount of fees payable under this Act, fractions of ten paise equal to or exceeding five paise shall be counted as ten paise and other fractions of ten paise shall be disregarded. (2) The fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock: Provided that where the purchaser cannot be identified the fees shall be paid by the seller.” Section 12-A reads as under; “Section 12-A: Submission of return of turnover by trader:- Every trader in the notified area, who is liable to pay fees under Section 12, shall submit such return or returns relating to his turnover in such manner, within such period and to such authority, as may be specified by the market committee in its bye-laws. Explanation:- For the purposes of Sections 12-A to 12-G (both inclusive) the terms- i. “market fees” shall mean the fees levied under sub- section (1) of Section 12; ii. “turnover” shall mean the aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock, are purchased or sold, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration.” Section 12-B reads; “Section 12-B: Assessment of market fees :- (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any return submitted under Section 12-A is correct and complete, it shall assess the amount of market fees payable by the trader on the basis thereof; but if the return appears to it to be incorrect or incomplete, it shall, after giving the trader an opportunity of providing the correctness and completeness of the returns submitted by him and after making such inquiry as it considers necessary, assess to the best of its judgment the amount of market fees due from the trader. An assessment under this section shall however, be made only within a period of three years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. (2) Where the return submitted by a trader includes the turnover or any of the particulars thereof which would not have been disclosed but for an inspection of accounts, registers or other documents of the trader made by an officer authorized under this Act before the submission of such returns, the assessing authority may, after giving an opportunity to the trader for making a representation in this behalf, treat such return to be an incorrect or incomplete return within the meaning of sub-section (1) and proceed to take action on that basis. (3) While making an assessment to the best of Judgment under sub-section (1) the assessing authority may also direct the trader to pay, in addition to the market fees assessed a penalty equal to two times the market fees due on the turnover that was not disclosed by the trader in his return. (4) Where any trader liable to pay market fees under this Act- i. fails to submit return before the date specified in that behalf; ii. produce the accounts, registers and other documents after inspection; or iii. submits a return subsequent to the date of inspection; the assessing authority may, at any time within a period of three years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates, after issuing a notice to the trader, and after making such inquiry as it considers necessary, assess to the best of its judgment, the amount, of market fees due from the trader, on his turnover for that year and may direct him to pay in addition to the market fees so assessed, a penalty equal to two times the market fees due. (5) Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of the trader has escaped assessment to market fees or has been under-assessed or assessed at a rate lower than the correct rate, the assessing authority may, at any time within a period of three years from the date on which any order of assessment was served on the trader,- a. determine to the best of its judgment the turnover that has escaped assessment and assess the turnover so determined; b. assess the correct amount of market fees payable on the turnover that has been under-assessed; c. assess at the correct rate the turnover that has been assessed at a lower rate, after issuing a notice to the trader and after making such inquiry as it considers necessary. The assessing authority, in addition to the market fee as assessed, also direct the trader to pay a penalty equal to two times the market fees.” In the judgment referred to above (2 supra), the contention was that under Section 12(2) of the Act, the market fee was payable by the purchaser and therefore it could not be demanded from the traders who have sold the rice. This argument was replied by the Court in paras 10 and 10(A) as under; is payable by “10. It is next contended that under Section 12(2) of the Act the the notified market agricultural produce and, therefore, it cannot be demanded from the traders who have sold the rice. Sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act reads as follows:- the purchaser of “12. (1) … … … (2) The fees referred to in Sub-section 1 shall be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock. Provided where the purchaser cannot be identified, the fee shall be paid by the seller.” Having regard to the said sub-section, there can be no doubt that the market fee leviable under Section 12(1) is primarily to be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce. Only where the purchaser cannot be identified, “the fee shall be paid by the seller”. Agricultural produce may be sold in regulated markets only by a licenced trader. In all regulated markets when agricultural produce is sold bills have to be issued wherein the name of the seller and purchaser are to be recorded. Condition No.8 of the licence lays down that the trader shall collect market fees from the purchaser and remit the same to the market committee. Where a licensee sells notified Agricultural produce, Livestock or Products of Livestock of his own he shall collect market fees from the purchaser and remit the same to the Market Committee. Condition No.5 of the licence further enjoins that licensee shall pay and also the Act, Rules and bye-laws of facilitate the collection of fees under Section 12 of the Act due to the market Committee as and when it becomes due as per the provisions of the Market Committee. Where the licensee functions as Commission Agent, Condition No.6 of his licence enjoins that he shall collect the market fee from the Purchaser and remit the same to the market committee and shall deliver goods to the purchaser after satisfying himself fully that the purchaser has paid the market fee. Condition No.3 of the licence further stipulates that the licensee shall submit to the Committee not later than 25th of every month true and correct information regarding the purchases, sale and storage of Agricultural produce by him in the preceding month to enable the market committee to determine the fee payable by him and collect the said fee under Section 12 of the said Act, due to it on such transactions as per the provisions of the Act, Rules and bye-laws. The form of the licence prescribed under Rule 48 is intended to carry out the purposes of the Act. Though the liability to pay the market fee is on the purchaser of the goods, the licensee is so to say, constituted as an agent for the collection of the market fee from the purchaser. Though the primary liability to pay market fee is on the purchaser, if the market fee is collected by the licensee, he will become liable to pay the same to the Committee. When the petitioners are enjoined under the licence to collect fees and remit the same, they cannot be absolved of their liability on the ground that under Section 12(2) of the Act only the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce is liable to pay the tax and that only in the event of the purchaser not being traceable and not until then. It is not as if the Act wholly exempts the sellers from payment of market fee. Even the sellers are, under the proviso, liable to pay the market fee. Of course that is dependent upon the purchaser not being identifiable. When in order to carry out the purposes of the Act, under the Rules the licensee is required to collect the market fees and remit the same to the market committee, he cannot be permitted to turn round and plead that he is not liable to pay the tax. Of course, if the seller was not required to collect the market fee and has not in fact collected the same, he would not be liable to pay. But that is because the seller was not enjoined to collect market fee and not because the primary liability is on the seller and not on purchaser. This aspect however would be relevant with reference to the period during which the Government had decided not to levy market fee on the purchase and sale of rice derived from the paddy which had already suffered market fee and issued instructions accordingly to the Director of Marketing who in his turn advised all the market committees in the State not to collect market fee thereon from 1-4-1973. Although the licence enjoined collection of market fee by the licenced traders from the instructions. If under purchasers, during the relevant period, they were under the instructions of the Government and advise of the Director of Marketing not to collect market fee on the rice derived from paddy which had already suffered market fee and in fact they were obeying such instructions, as discussed elsewhere, the licenced traders had not collected market fee, they cannot be said to have contravened any conditions of the licence, nor can they be held liable to pay the market fee under Section 12(2) of the Act. Where the liability is imposed by the provisions of the Act and conditions of the licence, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, the licenced trader cannot escape the liability to pay market fee on the ground that sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the Act imposes the liability to pay market fee on the purchasers. But it is clear until it is established that the purchaser is not identifiable, market fee cannot be recovered from the sellers. 10A. Sec.12 is the charging Section which authorizes the levy of market fee on agricultural produce. Rule 74 of the rules makes provision in this behalf and regulates procedure for collection of market the Market Committee stipulates when and at what points and at what rates market fee may be levied and collected.” leviable. Bye-law 24 of The contention that the fee has to be paid only by the purchaser and not the seller and can only be collected after the assessment is made, has not been accepted by this Court earlier and cannot be accepted in view of Rule 74. Rule 74 lays down; “74. Market Fees :- [(1) The fees leviable under sub-section (1) of Section 12 on notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock if paid to a market committee within the State shall not be collected by another Market Committee when such notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are brought into the notified market area of another market committee for the purpose of processing, pressing, packing, storage, export and on sales effected in the course of commercial transactions between the licensed traders, and the licensed traders and consumers subject to production of such evidence as may be prescribed in the bye-laws about the payment or market fees from where it was brought.] Provided that the fees shall be levied on the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are sold in auction or in other manner prescribed in the bye-laws in the market either directly or through commission agents even though purchased already in the same market or some other market or place within the State. (2) Such fees shall be leviable as soon as the notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock is purchased or sold licensee. The notified agricultural produce, livestock or by a products of livestock shall be deemed to have been purchased or sold after the notified commodity has been weighed or measured or counted or when it is taken out of the notified market area.” This question has already been decided by this Court by an elaborate judgment and we have not been given any reasons which would make us disagree with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. The respondents have also relied on a judgment reported in Raghunath Cotton and Oil Product Ltd. V. Director of Marketing, A.P., Hyderabad & another. It is also a Division Bench judgment of this Court. Again the argument was same which is made before us. After extracting section 12 of the Act and Rule 74(2), the Court held in para 7; “7. A perusal of sub-rule (2) of Rule 74 extracted above makes it clear that it incorporates the presumption contained in Explanation I to Section 12 of the Act. It must be noted that neither Explanation I to Rule 12 nor sub-rule (2) of Rule 74 extends the presumption to the goods which are being transported through the Market Area. Inasmuch as the liability to pay market fee arises on sale or purchase of any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock, the said Explanation and the said sub-rule raise a presumption which is rebuttable that when any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are taken out of the market area then such commodities will be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area. This presumption does not arise in a case where, admittedly the commodities referred to above are purchased in a different State and are being transported.” It also laid emphasis on Rule 75 and recorded its findings in para 9 as under; “9. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 75 injuncts that any person shall transport any notified agricultural products, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area from the limits thereof, only on production of the receipt for the payment of prescribed fees in respect of such notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock to the market committee concerned. It is clear that this sub-rule is framed to check evasion of market fee and to safe-guard the interest of the revenue of the Market Committee and enjoins that the transportation of the above said commodities from the limits of the Market Committee should be only on production of receipt of payment of the prescribed fee. Now sub-rule (2) of Rule 75 authorises the employees of Market Committee to stop and check all vehicles suspected to carry unauthorisedly any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock from any place within the limits of any notified market area. This sub-rule cannot be diversed from sub- rule (1) which has to be read in conjunction with sub-rule (2) of Rule 75. Thus read it becomes clear that this Rule is also framed to check evasion of market fee by empowering the authorized employees to check the vehicles which are suspected to transport any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock from any place within the limits of any notified market area. Unless the suspicion of the authorized officer of the Market Committee relates to non-payment of market fee in respect of sale or purchase of the commodities referred to above, in the notified area, sub-rule (2) of Rule 75 cannot be called in aid. Rule 75 also does not deal with the transportation of the goods purchased from outside the State and passing through any market area. Of course, this does not mean that the employees of the second respondent are not entitled to satisfy themselves that the goods are purchased from any place outside the State or in other words that the goods were not purchased or sold within the concerned notified market area.” However, the petitioners have relied on another Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Modern Nutrition Company, Hyderabad V. Agricultural Market Committee and others. In para 14 of the judgment it is laid down; “14. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside, consequentially the writ petition is allowed and it is declared that respondents are not entitled to realize any market fee from any person at the check-post, who is not shown to have purchased or sold any agricultural produce, etc., upon which fee is leviable under Section 12 of the Act. Any fee already realized in the absence of the above being established in the case of the writ petitioner-appellant shall be refunded to it.” We do not find that this judgment is in conflict with the earlier judgments to which a reference has been made hereinabove. For these reasons, we do not feel that these writ petitions can be allowed. They deserves to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Now, coming to the second set of Writ Petitions, of which, we have taken Writ Petition No.22867 of 2003 as a representative writ petition, though the respondents contend that the controversy raised in these writ petitions is also covered in the earlier batch of writ petitions, but Mr.C.V.Mohan Reddy appearing for some of the petitioners, would contend that rice is not an agricultural produce at all and therefore the market fee could not be levied on it. According to him, this question was not considered in earlier judgments. These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of respondents in notifying the rice as agricultural produce for the purpose of the Act, as arbitrary and illegal. The learned Counsel would argue that in terms of Section 2, agricultural produce has been defined as, “Agricultural produce means anything produced from land in the course of agriculture or horticulture and includes forest produce or any produce of like nature either processed or unprocessed and declared by the Government by notification, to be agricultural produce for the purposes of this Act.” There is no dispute that rice has been declared by the Government by notification, to be agricultural produce for the purpose of this Act. But what the learned counsel for petitioners would submit is that by a bare reading of the definition of ‘agricultural produce’, it would become clear that agricultural produce would mean anything produced from the land in the course of agriculture or horticulture. It would include forest produce or any produce of like nature either it was processed or unprocessed. According to the learned Counsel, a product can be agricultural produce within the definition either when it is processed or when it is unprocessed. Both the processed and unprocessed product, which is produced from the land, cannot be subjected to levy of market fee under the Act. According to him, rice is processed product derived from paddy and paddy is derived from land in the course of agriculture. The learned Counsel would contend, if paddy is notified to be agricultural produce, that would mean a produce which was produced in the course of agriculture, was notified in an unprocessed stage. After paddy was declared to be an agricultural produce, rice could not be declared agricultural produce. The contra would also be correct that if paddy had not been declared to be an agricultural produce, rice could have been declared as agricultural produce. He lays emphasis on the words in the definition, “produce of like nature either processed or unprocessed”. The learned Counsel Mr.Mohan Reddy contends, the purpose of using those words is to set the limitations of meaning without altering the normal meaning. For the fact that rice was not produced from the land, it would not fall within the meaning of ‘agricultural produce’. It would however fall in the meaning of ‘agricultural produce’ if it were processed. He further submits that the word “or” in the phrase “either processed or unprocessed” in Section 2 of the Act cannot be read as “a n d ”. Mr.Mohan Reddy contends that if the intention of the Legislature was to make rice and paddy both subject to the Act, then the words would have been, “produce of like nature processed and unprocessed”. According to him, “either or” creates an exclusive division between two alternatives and demands a choice. According to him, whenever the phrase “either or” is used, that would mean either of the two and not both. Therefore according to him, on bare reading of the phrase “either processed or unprocessed”, the Government has no power to notify both the products i.e. rice and paddy as agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act. He has referred to dictionary meaning of the word “either”. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition, Page 516 defines “either” as, “Either : Each of two; the one and the other; one or the other of two alternatives; one of two. Often used, however, with reference to more than two, in which case it may mean “each” or “any”; but does not mean “all”.” He has also referred to Strouds dictionary, in which the meaning of the word “either” is given as under; “Either : (1) “Originally, ‘either’ had much of the meaning of ‘both’. For some centuries, however, its normal meaning has been, ‘one or other’, see Murray’s English Dictionary. Certainly that is its prima facie meaning at the present time” (per Rigby L.J., Re Pickworth, 68 L.J.Ch.328; but see per Williams L.J., ibid.). (2) Where there is a devise to two, “but in case either one of them should die without children that share to go to the other,” and both die without children, the property on the death of the one who died first goes to the other (Drennan v. Andrew, 36 L.J.Ch.1). But where there was a gift for life to A, with a vested interest after her death to B and C, “and if either of them shall be then dead, upon trust for the survivor of them absolutely,” and both died in the lifetime of A; held (Rigby L.J., diss.) that the vested interest of B and C was not divested, and that their representatives took equally (Re Pickworth [1899] 1 ch. 642; in which case were considered Browne v. Kenyon, 3 Mad. 410; White v. Baker, 29 L.J. Ch.577; Harison v. Foreman, 5 Ves. 207; and Scurfield v. Howes, 3 Bro.C.C.90). Observe, that the decision in Re Pickworth refused to read “either” as “both”, or “survivor” as “longest liver.” (3) In Re Hill to Chapman the question turned on the following phrase in a will, “in case of the death of either of them”; on which Brett M.R., observed, “I think the word ‘either’ means ‘one’, and not ‘the other’” (54 L.J. Ch.597). So, in Sharp v. Sharp (2B. & Ald. 405; stated, Lewin, 776), a power to appoint new trustees “in case either” of the appointed trustees should die, etc., “either” was held to mean “some one” of the trustees, not “all” of them. “Should either of my said daughters die,” “plainly means ‘any’” (per Balfour L.P., Anderson’s Trustees v. Miller, 37 S.L.R.231).” He has also referred to the judgment reported in Messrs. Govindram Ramprasad V. Assessing Authority (Sales Tax) and another. In this case, the Judges were confronted with interpretation of a provision. The relevant portion of the provision is quoted in the judgment as; “Turn over means the aggregate amount for which goods are either sold or supplied for the payment received in respect of a contract by a dealer…………..”. Then the Court stated; “Now the word ‘either’ may be a pronoun or a conjunction or an adverb. When it is used with the word ‘or’ it is used as a conjunction. In Currie v. Glen, 54 Com-W LR 445 (B), Starks J. observed at page 453 that the word ‘either’ is not a technical word. It is a distributive word and may mean one of two or each of two depending upon the subject matter and the context. The learned Judge gave numerous examples of how ‘either’ is used. In the Webster’s dictionary it is said that when the words ‘either’ and ‘or’ are used they indicate a choice between one thing or another. According to the Webster’s dictionary they are then being used as a conjunction, and examples are given like ‘Either he does or I do”, “either in late spring or early summer”. From these examples it is deduced in the dictionary that there is choice between the one or the other of the things mentioned. They are not conjunctively placed so as to be read together. They are to be read as alternatives from which the choice or a selection must be made.” Then the Court went on to say in para 9, “Reading the Section in the light of these observations, it is quite clear that the words “either”, “or” are not used in any technical sense. They are used to denote two states of affairs in which a turnover would be found. Referring to the definition, therefore, ‘turnover’ means the aggregate amount for which goods are either sold or supplied. It would be clear from this that there is either to be a sale of the goods or the goods have to be supplied. The short question is whether the phrase “for the payment received in respect of a contract” can legitimately be taken to qualify the word “sold”.” Counsel for petitioners Mr.C.V.Mohan Reddy has also referred to a judgment reported in M/s.Ranchhoddas Atmaram and another V. The Union of India and others. This is a judgment by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Bench was interpreting following words in the Statute, “Any person concerned in any such offence shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods or not exceeding one thousand rupees.” The Supreme Court framed the following question; “The question is whether, in imposing a penalty, the conditions laid down in both the alternative clauses joined by the word “or” have to be fulfilled or the condition in any one of them only ?” In Paras 13 and 14, it laid down; “(13). It is clear that if the words form an affirmative sentence, then the condition of one of the clauses only need be fulfilled. In such a case “or” really means “either” “or”. In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary one of the meanings of the word “or” is given as “A particle co-ordinating two (or more) words, phrases or clauses between which there is an alternative.” It is also there stated, “The alternative expressed by “or” is emphasized by prefixing the first member or adding after the last, the associated adv. EITHER.” So, even without “either”, “or” alone creates an alternative. If, therefore, the sentence before us is an affirmative one, then we get two alternatives, any one of which may be chosen without the other being considered at all. In such a case it must be held that a penalty exceeding Rs.1,000 can be imposed. (14). If, however, the sentence is a negative one, then the position becomes different. The word “or” between the two clauses would then spread the negative influence over the clause following it. This rule of grammar is not in dispute. In such a case the conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled and the result would be that the penalty that can be imposed can never exceed Rs.1,000.” Now, light of judgments, learned Counsel Mr.C.V.Mohan Reddy wants that either the rice or the paddy can be made subject matter of market fee under the Act. When a phrase “either or” is used, that gives a choice and that would mean any one of the two and not both. We do not agree with the construction that is being tried to be placed on Section 2(i) of the Act, which in our view, is in three parts. The first part would lay down that ‘agricultural produce’ means anything produced from the land in the course of agriculture or horticulture. This part of the definition of ‘agricultural produce’ concludes at that. And then comes the second part, which lays down that it includes forest produce or any produce of like nature either processed or unprocessed. Third part of the Section would mean, declared by the Government by notification, to be agricultural produce the purposes of this Act. For the purposes of understanding of this Section, in our view, agricultural produce would mean;

1. Anything produced the course of agriculture or horticulture.

2. Forest produce or any produce of like nature either processed or unprocessed.

3. Any processed or unprocessed produce declared by the Government by notification, to be an agricultural produce for the purpose of this Act. The declaration by notification, by the Government, applies to all the produces. It is the choice for the Government to declare any produce which may be processed or may be unprocessed. Therefore, both processed and unprocessed agricultural produce can be agricultural produce provided, it is notified in terms of the Act for the purposes of the Act, by the Government. In order to further cement our opinion, we would like to refer to the statement of objects and reasons given while enacting the Act. This Act was enacted with a purpose to regulate the purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock and the establishment of markets in connection therewith. In statement of objects and reasons, it is pointed out, “The salient features of this Bill, among others, are; i. to bring within the scope of the legislation all agricultural commodities, both processed and unprocessed, livestock and products of livestock. ii. to empower the market committee to issue licences to traders in a notified area.” Therefore in the preamble, the legislature was clear that the purpose of the bill was to bring within the scope of the legislation all agricultural commodities both processed and unprocessed. In a judgment reported in Biswambhar Singh & others V. State of Orissa & another, a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held in para 32; “We are therefore bound to construe the ambiguous words which we have examined above in a sense which will carry out the purpose of the Act and not in a way which will travel beyond it.” A Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in a Presidential reference in In re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, referred to the judgment reported in Biswambhar Singh case (7 supra) and laid down in para 19; “the policy and purpose of a given measure may be deduced from the long title and the preamble thereof has been recognised in many decisions of this Court.” In a judgment reported in N.K.Jain and others V. C.K.Shah and others , the Supreme Court, while enunciating the principles of interpretation, held; “Legislative purpose must be noted and statute should be read as a whole.” In a judgment reported in State of Uttar Pradesh V. Tobit and others, in para 3, the Supreme Court held; “……….. it is well settled that “the words of a Statute, when there is doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature has in view. Their meaning is found not so much in a strictly grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used, and the object to be attained.” (Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition page 52) . In order, therefore, to come to a decision as to the true meaning of a word used in a Statute one has to enquire as to the subject-matter of Legislature had in view.” the enactment and the object which In a judgment reported in State of Madhya Pradesh V. M/s.Azad Bharat Finance Co. and another, it is held; “It is well recognized that if a statute leads to absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence.” The Supreme Court, in this connection, relied on a judgment reported in Tirath Singh V. Bachittar Singh (1955-2 SCR 457/AIR 1955 SC 830). In a judgment reported in Molar Mal (dead) through LRs., V. M/s.Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd., the Supreme Court held; “We agree with this contention of the landlord that normally the Courts will have to follow the rule of literal construction which rule enjoins the Court to take the words as used by the Legislature and to give it the meaning which naturally implies. But, there is an exception to this rule. That exception comes into play when application of literal construction of the words in the Statute leads to absurdity, inconsistency or when it is shown that the legal context in which the words are used or by reading the Statute as a whole, it requires a different meaning. In our opinion, if the expression "entitled to apply again" is given its literal meaning, it would defeat the very object for which the Legislature has incorporated that proviso in the Act inasmuch as the object of that proviso can be defeated by a landlord who has more than one tenanted premises by filing multiple applications simultaneously for eviction and thereafter obtain possession of all those premises without the bar of the proviso being applicable to him. We are of the opinion that this could not have been the purpose for which the proviso is included in the Act. If such an interpretation is given then the various provisos found in Clause (3) of Section 13 would become otiose and the very object of the enactment would be defeated. Any such interpretation, in our opinion, would lead to absurdity. Therefore, we have no hesitation in interpreting the proviso to mean that the restriction contemplated under that proviso extends even up to the stage when the Court or the tribunal is considering the case of the landlord for actual eviction and is not confined to the stage of filing of eviction petition only. In view of these judgments and in view of the other reasons given hereinabove, we have no doubt in our mind that both the processed and unprocessed agricultural produce can be agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act provided it is notified in terms of the Act for the purpose of the Act by the Government. The learned Counsel for some of the petitioners Mr.D.Sudhakar Rao has drawn our attention to a judgment reported i n Srinivasa General Traders and others etc., V. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, where the Supreme Court was dealing with the question whether fee could be levied on rice and paddy. Though the argument was not made which has been made before us, but at the same time, we consider it to be a relevant judgment because, it also considered the impact of Section 12(1) of the Act and in para 41 it held; “ 41. The view that no market fee is payable on purchase or sale of rice stems from the premise that since paddy is de-husked into rice there cannot be levy of market fee at both the stages i.e. on purchase of paddy by a rice miller from a producer and again on purchase or sale of rice by a rice miller to a trader or trader to a trader. The question whether the fee is payable at both the stages ? It would all depend upon the scheme of each Act. The decision in Ram Chandra’s case; (supra), turned on a construction of sub- clause (2) of Section 17(iii)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, as amended by U.P.Act 7 of 1978. It was conceded in that case on behalf of the State Government and the market committees that there cannot be any multi-point levy of market fee in the same market area. Under sub-cl. (2) of S.17 (iii) (b) of that Act if an agricultural produce is purchased from a producer directly, the trader is liable to pay market fee but when the trader sells the same produce to another trader, neither the seller nor the purchaser can be made to pay the market fee under (3). The scheme of the Act with which we are sub-clause concerned appears to be entirely different. Under sub-s. (1) of Section 12 of the Act, a market committee is empowered to levy market fee on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area. It would appear that every purchase or sale of any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock attracts the levy of market fee. One is apt to think that rice and paddy are the same commodity and therefore there is double taxation but, in reality, it is not so. There is distinction between ‘paddy’ and ‘rice’ and although paddy is milled into rice by the process of de- two separate and distinct commercial husking, commodities and have both been separately specified as notified agricultural produce in Schedule II as items 1 and 2 respectively. On the plain language of sub-s. (1) of S. 12 of the Act, the market fee is leviable on both on purchase of paddy by a rice miller from a producer and also on purchase or sale of rice by a miller to a trader or by a trader to a trader because there is service rendered by a market committee at each of the stages.” they are For the reasons given hereinabove, we do not find merit in these Writ Petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ (BILAL NAZKI, J) _____________________ (S.ANANDA REDDY, J) 21st December, 2004. N.B:- L.R. Copies to be marked. (B/o) N.B.:- Office shall place the copies of this order in respective bundles after the signatures of their Lordships. One fair copy each to the Honourable Mr.Justice Bilal Nazki & the Honourable Mr.Justice S.Ananda Reddy for their Lordships kind perusal. To: 1 The Secretary, Food & Agriculture (Marketing) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.R. Buildings, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Bapatla, Guntur District. 4 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, Guntur District. 5 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Commettee Tenali, Guntur District. 6 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 7 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Allagadda, Kurnool District. 8 The Secretary, Law and Legislature Affairs, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 9 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimadole, West Godavari District. 10 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Coimmittee, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 11 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Eluru., West Godavari District. 12 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District. 13 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 14 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Palakol, West Godavari District. 15 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Achanta, West Godavari District. 16 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 17 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Narasapuram, West Godavari District. 18 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Athili, West Godavari District. 19 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Penugonda, West Godavari District. 20 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Akividu, West Godavari District. 21 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Duggirala, Guntur District. 22 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Repalle,Guntur District. 23 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 22 24 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Badvel, Kadapa District. 25 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 26 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Ongole, Prakasam District. 27 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. 28 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 29 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. 30 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Dhone, Ananthapur District. 31 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kadiri, Ananthapur District. 32 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Tadpatri, Ananthapur District. 33 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, (Sub Yard, Kalluru R.S.), Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 34 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Gooty, Ananthapur District. 35 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Venkateswarapuram, Nalgonda District. 36 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Chandrudu, Nalgonda District. 37 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kodad, Nalgonda District. 38 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. 39 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Deverkonda, Nalgonda District. 40 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Haliya, Nalgonda District. 41 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kaikalur, Krishna District. 42 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Gudivada, Krishna District. 43 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Narsaraopet, Guntur District. 44 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Malakpet, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District. 45 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. 46 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 47 The Secretary, Argicultural Market Committee, Guntur, Guntur District. 48 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur, Guntur District. 49 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. 50 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 51 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Proddutur, Kadapa District. 52 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Jammalamadugu Post, Kadapa District. 53 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. 54 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Nidamanur, Nalgonda District. 55 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Manthani, Karimnagar District. 56 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District. 57 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. 58 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District. 59 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Karimangar, Karimnagar District. 60 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Jagitial, Karimnagar District. 61 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Gangadhara, Karimnagar District. 62 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Jadcherla, Mahbubnagar District. 63 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Nagar Kurnool. Mahbubnagar District. 64 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Shadnagar, Mahbubnagar District. 65 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Devarakadra, Mahaboobnagar District. 66 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Mahbubnagar, Mahbubnagar District. 67 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Badepally, Mahaboobnagar District. 68 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District. 69 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kollapur, Mahaboobnagar District. 70 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Makthal, Mahaboobnagar District. 71 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Wanaparthy Road, Mahaboobnagar District. 72 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. 73 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District. 74 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. 75 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Alampur X Road, Mahaboobnagar District. 76 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. 77 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Siricilla, Karimnagar District. 78 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Alamuru, East Godavari District. 79 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kairampudi, East Godavari District. 80 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 81 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. 82 The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 83 The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Delhi. 84 The Secretary, A.P.Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 85 Two C.Cs. to the G.P. for Agriculture, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 86 Two C.Cs. to the G.P. for Cooperation, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 87 Two C.D. Copies. 88 (8) L.R. Copies.