SRl v. vs N. NARAYANA RAO

Judgment

1. 2) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Anide 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the 3rd respondent in assessing the markel fees on the petitioner on purchase of rice / paddy from outside the State for the years 2021-2022, through Assessment proceedings No.AMC/|BP/2023-2024, dated 2stost2o24 is highry iilegar, arbitrary, unconstitutionar, without power, and without jurisdiction and contrary to raw and contrary to the provisions of the Terangana (Agricurturar produce and Live stock) Markets Act, 1966 and Rules made thereunder and apart from violation of Articles '14 and 19(1) (g) of the constitution of lndia, set aside the same and consequenfly direct the 3rd respondent to renew the trade ricense of the petitioner for a further period of 3 years lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the Assessment proceedings No.AMC/IBp t2o23_2o24, dated 25.05.2024 on the fire of the 3rd respondent pending disposar of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Gp FOR AGRICULTURE i1, Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI C. HARIPREETH, SC FOR TGAGRLMC 3 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 lN W.P. No: 13909 OF 2024 Between: Agriculture Market Committee, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its secretary' .....pETrroNER/RESp.No.3 rN w.p 1 Ir//s Kavitha Paraboiled Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadham ...RESPONDENT /PETITIONER AND

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prinicipal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad

3. The Director of Marketing, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No.1 &2 Pbtition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated.05.06.2024 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2O24 in W.P.No.13909 of 2O24 and to dismiss the Writ Petition W.P. NO: 13909 OF 2024 Between: M/s Kavitha Paraboiled Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadham Occ Business ...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

2. The Director of Marketing, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad 3. The Agriculture Market Committee, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Nticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, 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 3rd respondent in assessing the market fees on the petitioner on purchase of rice / paddy from 4 outside the state for the years 2020-2021 , through Assessment proceedings No.AMC/lBP/2023-2024. dated 2s.0s.2024 is highry iilegar, arbitrary, unconstitutionar, without power, and without jurrsdiction and contrary to raw and contrary to the provisions of the Terangana (Agricurturar produce and Live stock) Markets Act, 1966 and Rures made thereunder and apart from vioration of Articles 1 4 and 1 9(i ) (g) of the Constitution of lndia, set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to renew the trade license of the petitioner for a further period of 3 years lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section '15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Assessment proceedings No.AMC/tBp /2023_ 2024, dated 25'05.2024 0n rhe fire of the 3rd respondent pending disposar of the writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Gp FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: M/s. C. HARIpREETH, SC FOR TGAGRLMC IANO.2 0F 2024 tN WPNO:1 3914 0 F 2024 Between: Agriculture Market Committee, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep by its Secretary. AND ....PETlTlONERyRESp.No.3 tN W.p. 1 . M/s. Sri Laxmi parboited Ransa Reddy Districl, Rep. uv iti pI.tn!i,'h'nlrZnjonm Rice _lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam. . ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P. li}liid;eiiFiilitrfl ffiifl{"Hr""i{qrd,i"fxEv,lfl '#:'" ...RESpONDENTS/RESpONDENT No.1 &2 tN W.p ,l 5 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated.05.06.2024 passed in l.A No 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.'13914 of 2024 and to dismiss the Writ Petition WPNO: 13914 OF 2024 Between: M/s Laxmi Parboiled Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadham. lbrahimpatnam, Ranga ...PETITIONER AND Secretariat, HyderJbad, Rep. by its Princi-pal Secretary'. '1 . The State of Tetangana, Agriculture Dep?rtTgnt, Secretariat Building' 2. The Director of Marketing, Government of Telanganl Hyderabad -. 3. The Agriculture Market Committee, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy ulstnct' Rep by its secretary' ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, 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 3rd respondent in assessing the market fees on the petitioner on purchase of rice / paddy from outside the state for the years 2020-2021 , through Assessment Proceedings No.AMC/lBP/2023-2024, dated 25.05.2024 is high|y illegal, arbitrary' unconstitutional,withoutpower,andwithoutjurisdictionandcontrarytolawand contrary to the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce and Live stock) Markets Act, 1966 and Rules made thereunder and apart from violation of Articles14andlg(1)(g)oftheConstitutionoflndia,setasidethesameand consequentlydirectthe3rdrespondenttorenewthetradelicenseofthe petitibner for a further period of 3 years IAN :1OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto suspendtheoperationoftheAssessmentProceedingsNo'AMC/lBP/2023-2o24' dated25.05.2024onthefileofthe3rdrespondentpendingdisposalofthewrit petition f 6 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Gp FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI C. HARIPREETH, SC FOR TGAGRLMC lA NO: 2 OF 20241N WPNO. 1 3915 0F 2024 Between: Agriculture Market Committee, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Secretary. ....PETITIONER/RESP.NO.3 IN W.P. M/s. Kavitha paraboiled Rice Indr Ftries, Sheriguda, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its pa(ner, n. naminjOfiJm.' - The State of Telanoana gepqrrment, Secretariai Buitdins, Sed6tai;t, nvaJi5ulo, The Director of Marketing, Gove-rnment oi f6ianbini ff fOeranaO. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P. .. Rep_. by its principal Secretary.Agriculture AND 1 2 3 ...RESPONDENTS/RESpONDENT No.1 &2 lN W.p. Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim order dated.06.06.2024 passed in r.A.No..r of 2024 in W.P.No.13915 of 2024 and to dismiss the Writ petition WP NO: 13915 OF 2024 Between: M/s Kavitha Paraboiled. Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its partner, n. nahaniOEim. AND ..PETITIONER

1. The State of Tetanoana, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, ^ gg9rga1iqt, Hyd.erabad-, nef. uf iis eriniip;i5##ry. 2. lhe Director of Marketino,_Government of Telangana,'Hyderabad. 3. rhe Asricutture Market"borritii", ibirdiffi;f#;: Hans]- R;*ooy oistrict, Rep. by its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, 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 3rd respondent in assessing the market fees on the petitioner on purchase of rice lpaddy from 7 outside the State for the years 2022-2023, through Assessment Proceedings No.AMC/lBP/2023-2024, dated 25.05.2024 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without power, and without jurisdiction and contrary to law and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and Rules made thereunder and apart from violation of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of lndia, set aside the same'and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to renew the trade license of the petitioner for a further period of 3 years lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Assessment Proceedings No.AMC/lBP/2023-2O24' dated 25.05.2024 on the file of the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FORAGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI C. HARIPREETH, SC FOR TGAGRLMC lA NO: 2 OF 2024in WP No: 13946OF 2024 Between: Agriculture Market Committee, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its secretary ....pETrrroNERyRESp.No.3 rN w.p AND

1. M/s Laxmi Parboiled Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadham ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad

3. Th6 Director of Marketing, Govelnment of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No. 1&2 lN W.P Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated.05.06.2024 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.'13946 ot 2024 and to dismiss the Writ Petition 8 WP No: 13946OF 2024 Between: M/s Laxmi Parboiled Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadlham AND ...PETITIONER 1 . The State of Telangana, $griculture. Department, Secretariat Building, - Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2. The Director of Marketing, Government of Telangana, 3. The Agriculture Market Committee, lbrahimpafnam, Ranga Reddy District, -Hyderabad. Rep. by its Secretary ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, 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 3rd respondent in assessing the market fees on the petitioner on purchase of rice / paddy from outside the State for the years 2O2'l -2022, through Assessment proceedings No.AMC/IBP/2023-2024, dated 2510512024 is highty iIegat, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without power, and without jurisdiction and contrary to law and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana.(Agricultural produce and Live stock) Markets Act, 1966 and Rules made thereunder and apart from violation of Articles 14 and 19(.1) (g) of the Constitution of lndia, set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to renew the trade license of the petitioner for a further period of 3 years lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Assessment proceedings No.AMC/lBp t2O23_2024, daled 2510512024 on the file of the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Gp FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI C. HARIPREETH, SC FOR TGAGRLMC 9 IA NO 12 OF 2024 lN WP NO: 13968 OF 2024 Between: Agriculture Market Committee, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its secretary' ....pETrroNERyREsp.No.3 tN w.p AND

1. M/s Laxmi Parboiled Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadham. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P. 2. The State of Telangana, , Rep. by its Principal Secretary,Agriculture a. Th6 Directoi of Marketing, Gove.-rnment of Telangana, Hyderabad. Deoartment. Secretariat Buildinq, Secretariat, Hyderabad ,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1&2 IN W.P. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated.05.06.2024 passed in l.A.No '1 of 2024 in W.P.No.'13968 ot 2024 and to dismiss the Writ Petition WP NO: 13968 OF 2024 Between: M/s Laxmi Parboiled Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadham ..PETITIONER AND Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its PrinciPal Secretary.-

1. The State of Telangana, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, z. ihe Direct6r o1 Marketing, Gov6rnment of Telangana' Hyderabad - -. The Agriculture Market eommittee, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District' Rep. by its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, 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 3rd respondent in assessing the market fees on the petitioner on purchase of rice I paddy from outside the state for the years 2022-2023, through Assessment Proceedings No.AMC/lBP/2023'2024, dated 25.05.2024 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without power, and without iurisdiction and contrary to law and l0 contrary to the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and Rules made thereunder and apart from violation of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of lndia, set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to renew the trade license of the petitioner for a further period of 3 years lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Assessment Proceedings No.AMC/lBP 12023-2024, dated 25.05.2024 on lhe file of the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI C. HARIPREETH, SC FORTGAGRLMC lA NO: 4 OF 2024lN W.P.NO. 17444 OF 2024 Eetween: Agriculture Market Committee., lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Secretary ...pETrroNER/RESp.No.3 rN w.p. AND '1. M/s. Laxmi Parboiled Rice lnduslries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadham. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P. 2. The State of Telangana, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principdl Secretary. 3. The Director of Marketing, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Marketing, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENT No.1to3 in W.P. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated.15.07.2024 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.17444 of 2O24 and to dismiss the Writ Petition WP NO: 17444 OF 20 24 Between: M/s Laxmi Parboiled Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadham. ...PETITIONER AND Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary..

1. The State of Telangana, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, 2. The Director of Marketing, Gov6rnment of Telangana, Hyderabad' 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Markeling,.Hyderabad. +. fne ngiicutture h/aiket Committee., lbrahim'patnam, Ranga Reddy District, ...RES'.NDENTS Rep by its secretary' Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, 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 3rd respondent in rejecting the Renewal of Trade License through Letter No TR/ AMU tBPlo25t2124l60, dated 281612024 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana vide W.P.No. 13914, 13946 and 13968 ot 2024 apaft from violation of Articles 14 and 19(i) (g) of constitution of lndia, set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to renew the trade license of petitioner for the period 2024-2027 without existing for payment of alleged market fee for the Assessment years 2O20-2021 , 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 and also issue export permit books in favour of the petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of lmpugned Letter No.TR/AMCllBPl025l2024l60, dated 28.6.2024 on the file of the 3rd respondent, by directing the respondents to renew the trade license without insisting for payment of atleged market fees for the Assessment yea,f. 2020-2021,2021-2022 and 2O22-2O23 pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 i -t f 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondenls to issue export permit books in favour of the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to be pleased to modify the order dated 15.07.2024 made in the above writ petition in WP.No.1 7444 ot 2024 thereby direct the 3rd respondent to accept the undertaking from the petitioner to renew the trade license and to issue export permit books to the petitioner as the same benefit was extended by the authorities pursuant to the Memo dated 20.06.2024 issued by the Director of Marketing Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to4: SRI C. HARIPREETH, SC FOR TGAGRLMC VIIPNO: 17954 OF 2024 Between: M/s Kavitha Par Boiled Rice lndustries, Sheriguda, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Partner, R. Ramanadham. ,..PETITIONER AND Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. '1. The State of Telangana, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, 2. The Director of Marketing, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Marketing, Hyderabad. 4. The Agriculture Market Committee, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Dishict, Rep. by its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, 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 3rd respondent in rejecting the Renewal of Trade License through Letter No.TR/AMC/ lBPlo24l2o24l55, dated 28.6.2024 is highly iltegal, arbitrary, unconstitutionat, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana vide W.P.No.'13907, .13909 and .13915 of 2024 { l3 apart from violation of Articles 14 and "19(i) (g) of Constitution of lndia and contrary to the Memo No. L.S.lll/300/2024, dated 20.06.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent, apart from violation of Articles 14 and 19(i) (g) of Constitution of lndia, set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to renew the trade license of petitioner for the period2024-2027 without insisting for payment of alleged market fee for the Assessment years 2020'2021, 2021-2022 aad 2022-2023 and also issue export permit books in favour of the petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of lmpugned Letter No.TRyAMCI lBPll24l2024l55, dated 28.6.2024 on the file of the 3rd respondent, by directing the respondents to renew the trade license without insisting for payment of alleged market fees for the Assessment years 2O20-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue export permit books in favour of the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI C. HARIPREETH, SC FOR TGAGRLMC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOT]RABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI I.A.NO.2 0F 2024 IN W.P.NO.13907 0F 2024. WRIT'PETITION NO.T3907 OF 2024, I.A.NO.2 0F 2024 IN W.P.NO.l3909 0F 2024, WRIT PT]TITION NO.I39O9 OF 2024 [.aJ\Q.2 Or- 2024 rN W.P.NO.13914 OF 2024. WRIT PU'flTrON NO.r39l4 0F 2024 I.A.NO.2 0F 2024IN W.P.NO.I39t5 0F 2024, Y[Brr Pr|rrTroN No.l39ls oF 2024. I.A.NO.2 0F 2024IN W.P.NO.l3916 0F 2024, WRIT PETITION NO.13946 OF 2024 r.A.NO.2 0F 2024IN W.P.NO.13968 0F 2024, wRI'I' PI'TITION NO.13968 0F 2024, I.A.NO.4 0F 2024IN W.P.NO.l7444 0F 2024 WRIT PI'TITION NO.I7444 OF 2OZ4 AND wRIl'PIITITTON NO.17954 0F 2024 COMMON ORDER In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners ale challenging the assessment of the rnarket fees payable by the petitioners on purchase of W.P.No.l3907 of 2024 & barch (Total 8 cases) 2 rice/paddy from outside the State for the assessmenr years 2O2O-ZO2I, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 as illegal, arbitrary and unconsritutional, without power, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and the Rules made thereunder and also challenging the order dt.zl.06.ZO24 rejecting the renewal of trade licences of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to renew the trade licences of the petitioners for a further period ofthree years from2024 to 2027 and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ petitions are that the petitioners are licence holders who are dealing with agricultural produce and claim to be paying necessary market fees by producing relevant records. It is submitted that the petitioners have been purchasing rice from outside the State of Telangana, i.e., Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and the 3'd respondent in W.P.Nos.13g07,13909,13914, l3gl5, 13946 and, 13968 of 2024 has been exempting the petitioners from payment of market flees on purchase of rice/paddy from outside the State and export to other countries in terms of G.O.Ms.No.96, Agriculture and ( ,.\ W.P.No. 13907 of2024 & batch (Total 8 cases) 3 Cooperation (AM-IV) Department, dt. 19.10.2013 and also in terms of the Circular No. Projects/38/2005 dt.28. I 1.2013 ofthe 2nd respondent.

3. It is submitted that, for the first time, the 3'd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 has assessed the market fees on the rice purchased from other States for the assessment years 2020-2021,2021-2022 and 2022-2023 contrary to the instructions of the l't and 2nd respondents. It is submitted that Sections l2(l) and l2(B) of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short, "the Act") provide for charging and levying of market fee on the notified agricultural produce and that the 3'd respondent in W.P.Nos.l3907, l3g}g, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of2024 shall assess the market fee only on purchase or sale ofthe agricultural produce in the notified market area. It is submitted that under Section 12-B of the Act, only if the retum submitted by the assessee is incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority shall, after giving the trader an opportunity of providing the correctness and completeness of the return submitted by him and after making such enquiry as it considers necessary, assess to the best of its judgment, the amount of market fee, due from the trader. It is submitted that the \ \ W.P.No.l3907 of 2 024 & batch (Total 8 cases) 4 assessment under this Section shall, however, be made only within a period of three (3) years from the expiry of the years to which the assessment rerates' It is submitted that in this case, the assessments are made for the year 2020-2021 in the year 2024 i.e.,after expiry of three (3) years to which the assessments rerate and further that no documents were called for from the petitioners before making the assessment. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the assessment is not only without jurisdiction but also is in violation of the principres of naturar justice and the guidelines issued therefor. 4 At the time of admission of the Writ petitions, this Court had directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps for implementation of the impugned assessment orders.

5. The 3'd respondent in W.p.Nos. l3gO7, l3gL9, 13914, l3gl5, 13946 and 1396g of 2024 and the 4'h respondent in W.p.No.l7444 of 2024 rtave filed counter affidavits arong with vacate petitions in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.p.No. t3907 of 2024, I.A.No .2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13909 of 2024, t.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.p.No.l3 914 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.p.No.t39l5, t.A.No.2 of 2024in W.p.No.l3946 a W.P.No.l3907 of 2O24 &. batch (Total 8 cases) 5 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13968 of 2024 and I.A.No.4 of 2024 in W.P.No. I 744 4 of 2024 submitting that the exemption of market fee on rice is only when market fee is paid on the paddy and paddy is brought from other States for processing, packing and storage and unless and until they are sold again within the State, subject to production of certain documents and after making due enquiries and thorough verification of the documents produced with regard to the destiny of the commodity in question by the assessing authority, the market fee is exempted. It is submitted that the returns filed by the petitioners never dealt with the destiny of the purchased rice nor did the petitioners pay the market fee as mandated and therefore, the levy of market fee by the assessing authority is correct. It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.96 dt. 19. 10.2013 clearly states that exemption was given from payment of market feeof lYo rice being sold outside the State to other States within India as well as being exported to other countries for the entire life time and in para 6 thereof, it is clearly mentioned that exemption is given for entire life time as the rice is a processed commodity and cess is already collected on paddy. It is submitted that the petitioners have not produced any evidence in the form ofany documents to show that the market fee W.P.No. t3907 of 2 024 & batch (Total 8 cases) 6 has been paid on such paddy and therefore the rice is not exempted from payment of market fee. As regards the jurisdiction of the assessing authority in making assessment after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant yeaq the respondents have relied upon the powers vested with the assessing authority under Section 12-B of the Act and further submitted that an appeal would lie against such assessment under Section l2-E ofthe Act and thereafter a revision under Section l2-F of the Act and the petitioners have approached this court without exhausting the altemative remedy. It was therefore prayed that the writ Petitions be dismissed. 6 Further, as regards the contentions of the petitioners that they have applied for renewal of licence but the respondents have not renewed the licence, it is submitted that the said contentions incorrect and that the petitioners have not made any such apprications for renewal of licence except for making a prayer in these Writ Petitions.

7. In support of the contention of the respondents that when an altemative remedy is available, the petitioners can only avail such \M t' t . a W.P.No.l3907 of 2024 & batch (Total 8 cases) 7 alternative remedy, the leamed counsel for the 3'd respondent in W.P.Nos.13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 and,4th respondent in W.P.Nos.17444 and 17954 of 2024 has placed reliance upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gayatri Bio Organics Limited Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by the Principal Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Department and othersr. He submitted that in spite of knowing the above legal position, the petitioners have approached this Court by these Writ Petitions to avoid payment of admitted market fee to entertain the appeal.

8. The leamed counsel for the petitioners, however, placed reliance upon the following decisions to submit that the Writ Petition is maintainable where the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to pass such orders or has not followed principles of natural justice or provisions of law. (l)PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. Uco Bank and others2 ' w.p.No.l6537 of 2024 dr.28.06.2024 'Civil Appeaf No. ot2024 ansing out ofSLP(C) No.8867 of 2022 dt.t}.Ol.2024 : 2024 ttlllC 297 W.P.No.l3907 of 2024 & batch (Total E cases) 8 (2) Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of I{imachal Pradesh and otherss (3)Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer- cum-Assessing Authority and othersa (4) Kranti Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and otherss

9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners have filed their retums and have produced the records, books of accounts, statements and other relevant records in support of their returns. The assessing authority itself has recorded that in respect of the market fee on paddy, the petitioners have submitted cash receipts, export permits and letters of payment to claim market fee exemptions and they were found to be valid and the same were considered for exemption, but has observed that while submitting monthly purchase retums, it was found that the sum of Rs.88,672l- is due from the petitioner in W.P.No. 13907 of 2024. It was also observed 1 (2021) 6 scc'771 o MAl.rrlsc/0086/2023 ' (2010) 9 scc 496 I W.P.No.l3907 of 2o24 & batch (Total 8 cases) 9 that the petitioner has imported 94791.08 quintals of paddy from other States for processing and that the petitioner has not produced evidence or proof for 4495 quintals of paddy in support of the claim of exemption for market fee. [t was further observed that the petitioner is not entitled for any market fee exemptions as per the market rules in vogue and the petitioner in W.P.No. 13907 of 2024 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.88,672l- towards market fee for 4495 quintals of paddy for the assessment y ear 202 | -2022.

10. As regards market fee on rice, the assessing authoritl, observed that the petitioner in W.P.No. 13907 of 2024 did not produce any cash receipts, export permits and letters of payment towards payment of market fee and that the petitioner has made certain purchases of rice within the State and hence is liable to pay market fee of Rs.2,33 ,5021- on the rice purchased r.r,ithin the State and further a sum of Rs.l8,62ll- on the rice purchases rnade from out of the State. Thereafter, sub.ject to the outcome of W.P.No.3 l80l of 2022, a demand for Rs. 18,621l- was made. W.P.No.li907 of 2024 & batch (Total 8 cases ) 10

11. As regards rice converted/processed from paddy within the State, it was allowed and in respect of the rice converted/processed from paddy out of the State, a demand of Rs.18,78,572l- was made.

12. In respect of the petitioners in other Writ Petitions, i.e., W.P.Nos.l3909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024, similar observations were made by the assessing authority in the respective impugned orders on the four categories of commodities with varied market fee demands vis-a-vis quintals of commodities

13. Thus, it can be seen that the petitioners have produced the relevant documents and if the assessing authority was of the opinion that the said retums are incomplete or incorrect, then in accordance with Section 12-B of the Act, he ought to have called for the petitioners' explanations, if any. From the impugned orders, it is clear that no such notices were given to the petitioners and no explanations were called for from the petitioners and no show-cause notices were issued as to why the demand should not be raised against the petitioners. Therefore, it is in--o'lear violation of the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and also in violation of the W.P.No. t3907 of 2024 & batch (Total 8 cases) principles of natural justice. The said provision is very clear that if the retums submitted by the trader were to be accepted as they are, no notice need be given, but il- the assessing authority is of the opinion that the retum is incomplete or incorrect, the trader ought to be put on notice before making an)' assessment.

14. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the 3.d respondent in W.P.Nos. 13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 is that whcn there is an efficacious alternative remedy available, Writ Petition is not rnaintainable. This Court finds that the same would be applicable if the assessment was made in accordance with the Act and the rules made thereunder, but not where the assessing authority did not follow the rules before finalising the assessment.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. Statc of Himachal Pradesh and others (3 supra) at para27.4, has observed that an altemate remedy by itself does not divest the High court of its powers under Article 226 of rhe constitution in an appropnate CASE though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be W.P.No.l3907 of 2024 & batch (Total 8 cases) entertained when an efficacious altemate remedy is provided by law. Further, inpara27.3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "27.3. Exceptions to the rule of ahernate remedy arise where: (a) lhe writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution: (b) there has been o violation of the principles of natural juslice; (c) lhe order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. "

16. Thus, in this case, when the assessing authority has not followed the provisions of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 and has not followed the principles of natural justice, the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various other judgments which are relied upon by the leamed counsel for the petitioners.

17. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned assessment orders in W.P.Nos.l3907, 13909, 13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside with a direction to the assessing authority of the respondent Agri,cultural Market Committee to issue notices to the petitioners in t I W.P.No.l3907 of 2024 & batch (Total 8 cases) 13 W.P.Nos.13907, 13909,13914, 13915, 13946 and 13968 of 2024 along with reasons for forming an opinion that they are incorrect and incomplete details of the documents are fumished by the petitioners and after giving the petitioners an opportunity to produce thenr and after considering such documents, if any, the assessing authority shall re- assess the market fee payable by the said petitioners.

18. As regards the renewal of the licences of the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 17444 ancl I 7954 of 2024, due to the pendency of these Writ Petitions, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents can consider the applications ol' the petitioners for renewal of their licences in accordance with rules without prejudice to the assessments being made in respect of the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 13907, 13909, 13914, 13915, / I 13946 and 13968 ol'2024

19. In the result, (i) The Writ Petitions ln W.P.Nos.l3907, 13909, 13914, 13915,13946 and 13968 of2024 are allowed. (ii) The Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos. 17444 and 17954 of 2024 are disposed of. W.P.No- 13907 of 2024 & batch (Total 8 cases) 14 (iii) The vacate petitions in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.13907 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.l3909 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.139l4 of 2024, I.A.No.2 of 2024in W.P.No.l39l5, t.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No'13946 of 2024,1.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.l3968 of 2024 and LA.No.4 of 2024 in W.P.No. 1 74 44 of 2024 are dismissed. (iv) There shall be order as to costs in all these Writ Petitions. (") Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in all these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S ON OFFICER \ To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat Hyderabad

2. The Director of Marketing, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy.. 4. The Director of Marketing, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 5. The Regional Deputy Director of Marketing, Hyderabad. 6. One CC to SRl. V. V. N. NARAYANA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FORAGRICULTURE,High CourtfortheStateof Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. One CC to SRI C. HARIPREETH, SC FOR TGAGRLMC [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies w l5 I HIGH COURT DATED:2110112025 COMMON ORDER tA NO.2 0F 2024|N W.P.No. 13907 OF 2024 WRIT PETIT|ON No. 13907 OF 2024 |ANO.2 0F 2024 tN WPNO. 13909 0F 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 13909 OF 2024 IANO .2 0F 2024 tN WP NO. 13914 0F 2024 wRlT PETITION NO. 13914 0F 2024 |ANO.2oF 2024 lN WPNO. 13915 0F 2024 wRrr PETtTtoN NO. 13915 0F 2024 IANO.20F 2024lN 13946 0F 2024 wRtT PETiTION NO.13946 0F 2024 |ANO.2 0F 2024lN WPNO.13968 0F 2024 wRtT PETITION NO. 13968 0F 2024 |ANO.4 0F 2024|N WPNO.174M OF 2024 wRlT PETTION NO. 17444 0F 2024 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 17954 0F 2024 =::::::- 1l\L S iAlt:i 0 4 ttB 2025 7, a ( q J o (-) t DEspAtC ALLOWING THE WPNos. 13907,13909,13914,13915,13946&13968 OF 2024 AND DISPOSING OF THE WPNos. 1744/. ANO 17954 of 2024 |ANO.2 OF 2024lN WPNO.13907 of 2024 lA No. 2 ol 2024 in WP No. 13909 of 024 lA No.2 ot 2024 in WP No. 13914 ot 2024 lA No.2 ot 2024 in WPNo. '13915 o12024 lA No.2 of 2024 in WPNo. 13946 of 2O24 lA No. 2 of 2024 in WPNo. 13968 of 2024 lA No.4 of 2024 in WPNo. 17444 ot 2024 ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS $p^f