High Court · 2025

direct the respondents in terms of G-o.Ms.No.11, ;;";;:1;,terore this Honourabre court Market commiftee, rnarket commiftee, incruding dealing *,,i *l'i''t'ral I the interest .rrr",a"."' rarmers, merchants, *".. ,""Iolt IA NO:1 OF 2023 petition the arridavn ;.';; suspend G.o. Ms.No.39 :: " 'nu 1s/0s,2023,",;;,;;;,::;::[,j.;;;];;"'J;;I,:::"TJJr 1-51 cPc pravins rhar ir ,"i,,,on, 'L.'r,, tn" circumstances uncler Sect. ":r"r"r':: and the ,::^:**", Gaddiannaram stated in ::1"; : SRt M.SRINMAS Counset for the pefitioner Counset for the Responde Counsel for the Responde Counsel for the Responde nt No.4 : G.BHANU pRyA Nt No.tr : GP FoR AGRICULTURE nt No.2&3 : SRt C.HAR| PREETH w.P No Between: OF 3 , SC FOR AGRL.MC .:lf,#i*tv!,,x#fl f s,f;H:^fflT..i,Jl#oonff 'd#""fl ,%di[.1i:f i,ff ::"H:fr,?**,if, o3,x?,11 #,,#ui,J""fi"?,i:"i.,.#"?: ...PET,TONERS ^?:l,J*'J;lrrrr*?i,ifr+,iyli:f##fi l:'f:"sJ1'til89J:lliH'Asricurure ,lT;""r?frT;:?:ff l"i,#;"reo1ltffi lMarketins'Urdusarti' .EEA,S::l,JI;,l,yS*i,f**g:*r?:g;1f "'Hvderabad'repbvits ."RESPONDENTS circumstancesstatedinff olura'iioip ^u'i'o"-'o' "' :JXJ:::f ::'':,'ffi : and contrary t tlt1ffi;'t'nt"*u'"t' Stock) Markets Act' 1966 and the Rules' 196! Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the ;;**,**Ill^[#:ffi :lJ:',J"'"',::"] to issue an appropriate order' writ or direction more paruu;; 'ot"t"nns proceedings in initiation of proceedings t'no"''"'"" dated" 1 4'09'2023 addressed bv 3rd writ of t*of:I respondent . n.o,""oJ"'o-* u* *o'oo' Lr.No.AMcG/Esvr 14.09.2023 addressed by 2nd respono"nt to.t=.ta" mala fide' without iurisdiction (Agricultural Produce ;;; contrary to ure undertar<in; ;;"" berore this'."ffio""Xfl[ :":"J:"JJ:i: they wourd develop a rull-fledsed market vard " iil"J";';*".u "t ,oz in w'A' of the affidavit^given in l'A'No'6 ot 2022i O' "'n* the same' and consequently direct the respondents dated 13'02'20'o '"0 p'uiOt all facilities in t'erms of No.455 of 2021 andttt "''Ot to develop the fruit *"i"t *" at Koheda 'nO G.o'Ms'No'11' O"*'t't'0"020 and as per'the undertaking given before this t5::::i[it#::ffi''H::: Honourable court bv ;;;;;;*'""' in Committee and the persons dealing with the m? me'"franS' etc' in the interest of iustice' provisions of the Telangana 1969 and 'the ' IA NO:2 OF 2023 Betureen: No'4 ultiH:#'#i$iswi:i'11'""'::$1"is"s3:JH'i;;:il1$ffi'f:16t',1t432' RESPONDENT .'.PETITIONER'PRoPOSED AND 1 2 ;;:#f;tiiy1q*;,r$3[.":^fff{fl#*r,.T,r?.i?,ir; Pi?flilt ii:"1:x,',?*rJl,"lt*iFi{s1,",,,.tu?,,r""f,i",,is.,H#: '*e'Ul.Tjg,,r#?,h.,:fl ,',i;,:I#Hrg[i"r."ffi #"ffi:iinil,T " IiH"?llffi:ffi;gf"?irector or Asricu,-r*, r.*",rr, Urdusari, ' Ii""d'#['iriH5?1##g#:?i,Es*t3t:aram, Hydera bad, rep by its ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC pra Ytng that in the circumstances ffidavit filed in support of the ad the petitioners herein as Res allied applications in the interest tated in petitron, the High Court may be pleased to po ndent No. 4 in Wp.No. 26044 of 2023 and of Justice and pass such other order s the a in the IANo 10F 2023 petition under Sec :";::ru]':itr*1F.,"J,,:,"'"'",',:',:I'1'""circumsrancesstatedin r",," r#,rlt";1"t"":',ffi1,.d1 Barapuram mrnorr rno"itl.not'o ;,1; :l ,* ,.."*"*'T f[H:#I":,.":],"*,*, o"oo*",,., , 14'09.2_023 addressed by 3rd respondent to ,no"'^t'o,ralty/2o23-24, _srRy/s111/53rrro,rorr,.ourud 14togl2023roo.u...ru"rondent respondent in the interest ofjustice. Counsel for the petitioner: and Lr.No.AGM by 2nd respondent to Ist 'd SRI M.SRINTVAS Counsel for the Respondr counser for the Respono" rhe courr made the ,.,,"-.1:::.::sRr ""'' tng: COMMON ORDER : GP FoR AGRT,LT,RE c'HARr PREETH, SC FOR AGRL.MC E SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAK OF 2o23 7366 AND 2 No .2 ON HON'BL T NO ER N No. 27 Challenge OF 3 in this Writ Petition is to G'O Ms'No 39' the Government of Telangana' . State UKT. dated 19'9'2023 issued bY Agriculture and CooPerahon that it is illegal and conrary (Agricultural Produce a and the Rules 1969 as also to Court bY the authorities that market Yard at Koheda rn 1g.O2 '2O2O and bY virtue of th in Writ APPeal No' 455 of 2O2l' sought to resPondents to comple yard at Koheda in terms oI the abo the undertaking given before this Agricultural Market Committee ' G dealing with the market committee etcetera' I) DePartment on the ground of the Telangana to the Provisions nd Live Stock) Markets Act' 1966 the undertaking given before this theY wouid develop a full-fledged terms of G'O'Ms'No'11' e a{fidavit given in l'A'No'6 ol2022 direction rs A consequentiai fruit market te the Permanent ve mentioned G'O' and as Per Court in the interest of the and the Persons addiannaram including farmers' rnerchants' 2

2. Submissio,ls o tioners.. existed at Jambagh' arket Comnrittee was fruit market was Earlier, wholesale fruit mark HyderabacL. In 1986, the Agricurturar M constitutecl and q fulJ_fledged wholesal established at Gac with urr r"il the biggest -uru.,'o'tt'uram Commission o*.r,t" appears to have ,ru" in south India' It : "::::" "'o farmers' In 20 18' the Go'ernment """:.::, marke,,. K.heda tT:;." suddenly' 'n"' ".r.,' :::*:,, to shilt temporarily '' any facilities, ,.,, ;,T::: :ilr.o directed respondents to contin ue at :::"j:,:::J" 2o2o, withou, o.or,: wherein this Gaddiannar.n' ,j G.o.Rt.No.397, ou,".'"tt""rr' Marketing to hrand ove Department ror. constr hospitar and rerocate the market ,.r."t'o' challenging the said decision, *., No' I88ol of 2o2I was filcd which was disposed of on 0r.o9.2oton 21' The rnatter was carried by way of writ ARleal Nos. 451 and dire&ed initiary *, *r,,11.1 : '*, and the Division Bench yard. the Gov, 03 oa'2o21 a;""t,,.,s ilt:'...r::":: fruit market at Gaddiannaaram ol a super-speciality rnue business at Gaddiannaram "";:-'-:l:^al Batasincaram to Ilearth Market j While Writ Appe als are pending' the Government issued G.o Ms'No'32' dated 24 'O9 '202I declaring Batasingaram as notified Market Yard in order to overcome the objections raised by petitioners with regard to establishment of temporary market at Batasingaram and not providing facilities' including transfer from Gaddiannaram Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions were disposed of on r3.r2.2o2r granting one month time to petitioners to vacate and Govemment assured that it would provide ali the facilities in temporary market yard at Batasingaram in terms of G O'Ms'No'32' dated 24 'O9 '2027 and G.O.Ms.No'11, dated 13 02 '2O2O and complete Koheda Market yard. Petitioners have carried the matter to the Hon'bie Supreme Court, which, having found that certain issues were not considered, permitted petitioners to llle review' On filing review petitions, this Court passed hnal order on 08 'O2 '2022 providing one month time to petitioners to vacate the premises and further directed the authorities to provide all the facilities at Batasingaram to carry on the busrness' Petitioners shifted to Batasingaram and the Government provided the facilities tn Acs.34-O0 of government land and fruit market is being run with all facilities' Further' this Court directed that permanent full- fledged market is to be established in Koheda within one year as undertaken by it ln fact' an extension petition was also fited by 4 the Government subsequently uid.e I.A.No.6 of 2022 in W.A.No.4.55 ol 2021, for compliance, but, so far_, no de,,.elopment has taken p,lace runnlng smoothly. temporary market G.O.Ms.No,,. 1, dated 15.O2.2O2O 24.O9.2021, As per the directions of this Court and in terms of and G.O Ms.No.3,2, dated at Batasinga,ram htrs been In the meantirne, some of the persons, Ior extraneous reasons, sought for additional temporary m,arket at Pahadisharifl, which is detrimental to AMC, Ba tasrngaram, for which petitioners, Associations and others opposed. In f,1ct, the 3.drespondenr Committee also opposed the same rrrde letter dated 31.72.2A22. Ilut lor the reasons best known, the then Hon,ble Mrnister for Agriculture Marketing and Co_operation appears to have called lor an urgent meeting of the respondent authorities since there is no nominated agricultural market committee and directed/d ic tated the person_in -charge to submit proposals to set another temporary market at pahadishariff under AMC, Gaddiannaram. It appears, as per the said decision, wrthout following the due procedure and contrary to Section 4 oI the Teiangana (AgrLcultural produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (Ior short, ,the Act,) and the Rules, 1969, rvhich do not authorize number of temporary markets and 3.d respondent, as 5 submitted ProPosals in Lr'No per the said direction, AMCG/Estt/ 16/Mamidipallv 12O23-2a' dated 14'O9'2023 by enclosing a Draft Notification to the 2nd respondent to notify Mamidipally Village of Pahadishariff' Balapuram Mandal under the Agricultural Market Committee' Gaddiannaram under Section 4 (3) (b) of the 1966 Act and the Rules' 1969' On the said recommend.ation of the 3'd respondent' on the very same day' the 2'drespondentSentproposalstothel"trespondentfor Notification proposing to have the market yard at Mamidipally Village in the waqf land, without there being any title or license to the said land at Pahadishariff to the market committee' Aggrieved by the said proposal' petitioners filed Writ Petition No.26O44 ol 2023, wherein this Court passed order of status quo on 19.09.2023 ' Petitioners state that the Government got issued the impugned G.O' having knowledge about the order of this Court. Except stating as direction of the Government' no reasons are stated as to why temporary market is required at Mamidipally Village. It was also stated that the 3'drespondent Market CommitteedidnotpossessanylandatMamidipallyVillagenor didittakeleaseinitsfavour,anditneitherdevelopednor provided facilities thereat' / 6 It is srated that the impugned G.O. rr:cites a representatic'n from a private association, consisting ,]f some agents, w-hicl-r is supposed to pay lease / rent to Waqf Board and the 3.drespo.:dent-AMc, without having any control cver the market place, notified another temporary market without there being any recluirement, mala fid_elg ancl contrary to Section 4 (3) (c) of the Act, not in the land oI the market. There is no necessit5z for additiona I transit market until Koheda permanent market starts. Establishment of market at Mamidipally appears t3 be on waqf property, r.r,hich is contrary to the theme and objecl oI the 1996 Act. As per the impugned G.O., the temporary markt:t to be established on a lancl held by a private association, as il.it is a market comm tttee of 3.drespondent-AMc, without consulttng the stakeholders on the dictation oI the Govemment, the proceedings have been emanated and the impugned G. O. has been issued contrary to law and for political reasons to r,avour -re 4ur respondent, a private Association and no mifket can be established on their land. The 4tnrespondent, iI, wants to have a market, has to obtain license under Section T (9) of the Ac[ and it cannot requ€:st the Government or the 3.d respondent to split tlle market temporarily without any object or reasons to es?rblish another temporary rnarket contrary to the provisions oI the Act. In lact, the 3.d respondent clearly stated uide ietter ,lated 1

31.12.2(J22 not to establish another temporary market' Section a (3) of the 1966 Act does not authorize establishing a temporary market on the proposal of the 4mrespondent declaring as a notirred area, once the Government already exhausted pov/ef to notifu the temPorary market' It was further stated that the speed at which the Government proceeded clearly demonstrates that for extraneous considerations and for political reasons' a decision is being taken atthehighestleveitodividethetemporarymarket,whichis detrimental to the AMC' Further it would affect the Commtsston Agents doing their business at different places and the farmers would not get good price also' as auction would be held in different places, affecting the purchase by the purchasers' The Commission Agents .also will lose business and it would create confusion among the farmers as to where to sell their produce' and purchasers get disturbed as they cannot attend the auctions at both the places at the same time' and as a result' farmers lose the best price for the produce due to lack of competition The commission agents may face huge hnancial loss as even though they pay the sale proceeds to farmers on the same day' they give the Produce on credit to purchasers and as there is high chance ttrat these purchasers shuffle between markets to avoid repaying 8 scenano benefited credits glvej:r to them the under-<:onstruction market high-ways. and they The temporary market at Batasingaram or at Koheda was established on have good reach from CrRR anrj located outside the r:ity limits As a result, petitioners are not having any ISSues of traffic restrictions and farmers an<i purchasers are as rt is costing ress freight charges due to no-halt Further Batasingaram temporary market pro,".ides all the facilities .,\rith an area of Acs.3g_00 and Markert Committee, in consultation with the governrnent, provided all the faLcilities, sheds, etceter-a and there is no necessitlr to have any additional market. Busincss is going smooth at Batasingaram and change will affect farmers. Commission Agents, Hamalis, purchasers, etcetera whc,vill lose benefits and the Committet: has to spend huge amounts also to develop another temporary nlarket again at Mamidipally V.illage. The land on which the G.O. is; issued. being a u,aqf land, cannot be utilized for the purpose of market i1s per the provisions .cl. the Waqf Act, 195S. It is also stated that out of five days, t7 Og.2O23 (Sunday) and 78.Og.2O23 (Vinayaka Chaviti) are hoji<iavs and the Government having knowledge, to overreach thrs Court, issued the impugned G.O., whir;h is nothing but mara fide and arbitrary, at the instance of the 4u, respondent. 9 Lastly, it was stated that there cannot be any two temporary markets without any need' The action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to their own undertaking before this Hon'ble Court that they would develop a full-fledged market yard at Koheda in terms of G'O Ms'No'll' dated13.o2.2020andbyvirtueoft}reaffrdavitgiveninl.A.No.6 of 2022 in W.A.No'45 5 of 2O2l and letter of 3'drespondent dated 3r.r2.2022. Submissions of Respondent No.l. 2 &,3in their 3 counte r affidatit: It is stated that the Department has called Request For Proposal (RFP) Ior Master Planning' Architectural & Engineering Consultant for preparation of an Integrated Master Plan and infrastructure Design for proposed Agricultural Market yard at Koheda (V), Abdullapurmet (M)' Ranga Reddy District' Accordingly, M/ s Voyants Solutions Pvt Ltd contract as Per proceedings Telangana State the said was awarded No.577 I /MKTG II(1) /2018' of ABC dated 19.O5'2O22 the National Council of State (MKT.lI)DePartment' Further' Agricultural Marketing Boards (COSAMB)' New Delhi has been appointed as Institutional Consultant for Preparation of DPR' Drawings & Designs, Cost Estimates' Specifications' Tender l0 Documents and Contract Agreement. Further, COSAI\{B, Nevv Delhi was also entrusted with the task of Reviewrng and Validation o{ Master planning and Architecture of Koheda Market entrusted to M/ s Voyants Solutions pvt Ltd. Accordingly, after a series of joint meetings held, Managing Director [MD), COSAMB, New Deihi srrbmitted DpR and Master Layout plan of Koheda Market; furlher Managing Director submitted initial cost estimates for Rs.365.63 Crores for taking up of phase_l development ,:f Koheda Market. In this connection, Government sanctioned Rs;,35O.0O Crores to Agricultural Market Contmittee (AMC), Gaddiannaram from the various AMCs in the Stai-e with surplus lunds so as to take up phase_r construction or rnarket yard at Koheda and balance Rs.l5.S3 Crores to br: met liom the savrngs of tht: market committee. Accordingly proposal-s have been submitted to the Govemment of Telangana towards Further, i1s per Gaddiannaram, administrative sanction for Rs.365.63 Crores the proposals submitted by the AMC, Government of Telangana uide Memo dated 31_O7_2023 issued approval of La1'out proposed for construction ol_Koheda Market yard. As the initial cost estimates are prepared as per SSR 2022_ 23 and the latr:st TSSR of 2023_24 are available, revrsed cost estimates are submitted with SSR_2O2 3_24 /CpW for Rs.399.96 Crores as per tr:re minutes of the meeting held at chambers of 1l Hon,bleMinisterforAgriculture,MarketingandCo-operationat Telangana Secretariat to the Government of Telangana dated 23.Og.2O23 and is awaiting for approval of the Government' It is submitted that once after construction of market at Koheda' processwouldbeinitiatedforallotmentofshops/Plotstothe eligible Traders and Commission Agents and other stakeholders as per the policy of the Government' The AMC' Gaddiannaram acquired about Acs'178-09 gts of land in Survey No'507/2 and 54812 in Koheda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal duly notifying the fruit market under the notified area of AMC' Gaddiannaram uide G.O. Ms.No'i 1 dated I3-O2-2O2O to shift the trade activities from Kothapet Market to Koheda as existing Market at Kothapet has become congestive due to its location in the middle of the city. Further, Government notified Batasingaram Logistic Park through G.O.Ms No'32 dated 24 'O9 '2O21 to handover the land at Kothapet Fruit Market in Gaddiannaram Village for construcdon of Government Super Specialty Hospital as per the instructions issued by the Government through G O Rt No'397 dated 03.08.2021- Further, additional facilities were also created for successful trading of fruits at Batasingaram by incurring an amount of Rs'7'O8 crores so far for catering the needs of expected higher trading in view of shifting of Fruit Trade from congested Acs.22.0O of land at Kothapet Fruit Market as 24X7 trading and movement isr rn2d6 possible after shifting of the Mark.et from Kothapet to Ilatasingaram I t is specifically stated that it u,as a fact that the 3drespondent adclressed the letter dated 3i-12-2022; lurther, the Selection Grade Secretary, AMC, Gaddinnaram while discussing the modality and difficulties in establishing ne.w fruit market at Mamidipally, has requested the Director of Agricultural Marketing, Government of Telangaaa to arrange, to address a letter to the CEO, Telangana State Waqf Board not to allo,^, any fruit trade at lhe land whose advance possession is handr>r,er to M/s New Frl-lil Market Wholesale Commissron Agents Association Ior conducting rvhole sale fr.uit market in an extert oi Acs.12.OO belonging to V/aqf Board until a valid license is obtainec from Government ais per Section 7(9) of the Act. Further, the 4rh respondent mzLde a representation to the Hon'blt' Minisl :r for Marketing and Co-operation and to the Director of Marketing, Government of Telangantr, Hy,derabad requesting for r:rotification of Mamidipally (pahadishariff) (V). as a market under Slection + (3) (b) (c) As per Assurance No. 164g dated t2.O2.2023 in of the VilI session 01. the Telangana Legslative Assembly, the Hon,ble Minister lor Market*g-and l{on,ble Minister lor Home Affairs har,.e condLrcted IV meeting Agricultural Agriculture, l3 meeting with Hon'ble MLAs of Chandrayangutta' Malakpet and Karwanon02.oS.2g23forexaminingtherequestforrunningthe MarketatPahadiShariffalsotillshiftingofMangotradeto KohedaMarket.ThereafterinthemeetingchairedbytheHon,lrle Minister for Agriculture, Marketing and Co-operatron' Government of Telangana at Telangana Secretariat on Og-Og-2O23 issued directions for notification of PahadiShariff as a market under AMC, Gaddiannaram immediately with a condition that, once the Koheda market starts functioning' PahadiShariff shall cease to be a market' Accordingly' proposals were submitted to government for notification of PahadiShariff (Mamidipally) as a market under AMC' Gaddiannaram' with the following conditions:

1. Notification Gaddiannaram functioning, Mamidipally (PahadiShariffl shall cease to be a market' of Mamidipally (Pahadisharif! as a Market under with a condition that, once the Koheda market AMC, starts

2. The market at Mamidipalty (Pahadisharif| will function with the existing licensedFruitCommissionagentsoutof34lNos'regtsteredunderAMC, Gaddiannaram onlY.

3. M/s New Fruit Wholesale Commission Agents Association of Mamidipally (PahadiShariff) shall continue to pay the lease rent to the CEO' WAQP board as per their agreement during the period of market functioning' Accordingly, Government issued the impugned G'O duly egtqplishing a Market at Mamidipally (PahadiShariffl Village 14 under AMC Gaddiannaram under Clauses (b) and (c) of sub_ section (3) of Section 4 of the 1966 Act with the following conditions

1. Once the Koheda market starts its functioning, the market notlfying at Mamidipally (pa hadisharifflshall be ceased automatically,

2. 341 No. of existing licensed Fruit Commission agents registered uncler AMC, Gaddialnaram market shall only entitled to function at Mamidipally (PahadiShariff) nrarket. 3- M/s. New Fruit Wholesale Commissjon Agents Association of Mamidipally(Pahaclishariff) shall pay the lease rent to rhe CEO, WAeF board as per their agreement during the period of market functronlDg.

4. The Market Committee, Gaddiannaram is entitled to (.oilect market fee under Section 12 of the Telangana (Ap & LS) Markets Act 19(16 through FIor,l,ever, the Director oI Agricultrtrill Mai.keting I-r.No.AGM/STRyiS-rrr/ s3377O/2023, dated 21 .O9.2023 injbrmed the Government abor-rt the status quct order dated 19.09.21123, which was communicated by M/s pragathi Fruits Commission Agents Association represented try its President Sri Ciinnam Venkateshwarlu Gupta and lurther course of action for irnplementation of orders of the Governmenr were not taken up. Irurther, petitioner made untenable allegation that Government, with a back-date, got issued the G-o to over reach this Court's order, issued the impugned G.O. l5 It was further stated that there is no truth in the allegationsofPetitionersthatAMC,withouthavinganycontrol over the market place, notified another temporary market' With the issue of notification of Market at PahadiShariff under Section 4 (3) (b) of the Telangana (AP & LS) Markets Act 1966' all activities linked to trade shall come under the control of AMC' Gaddiannaram and the 1966 Act and the Rules' 1969 shall be implementedandasperSection4(3)(b),everymarket committee shall also establish in the notified area such number of markets as the Government may, from time to time, direct for purchase and sale, soleiy of vegetabies or fruits and shall provide such facilities in the market as may be specified by the Governmentfromtimetotimebygeneralorspecialorder,,.Thus, the contention of petitioners is not maintainable' As per the impugned G.O., it was clear that Market at Mamidipally will run only up to the period of establishment of permanent Market at Koheda that too with the existing 341 Commission Agents only without issuing any new licenses' M / s New Fruit Market Wholesale Commission Agents Association Regd No' 1 167 of 2O2l on 25.01.2023 made a representation to the Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture, Marketing and Co-operation and to the Director of Agricultural Marketing, Government of Telangana' Hyderabad requesting for notification of Mamidipally as a market under t6 section 4 (3) (b) (e) of the Act. Further, as per Assurance No. 1648 Dt. 72.02.2A23 in IV meeting of the VIII session of the Telangana l-egisrative Assembry, the Hon,bre Minister for Marketing and Hon,ble Minister for Home Affairs have conducted meeting with Hon,ble MLAs of Chandrayangutta, Malakpet and Karwan on 012.08.2023 for examining the request for runrring the Market at Pahadi sheriff also till shifting of Mango trade to Koheda Mark,:t. Thereafter, in the meeting chaired by the Hon,ble Minister for Agriculture, Marketing and Co_operation, Government. of Telangana at Telangana Secretariat on 09.O9 .2023, certain directions for notification of pahadiShariff as a market uncler AMC, Gaddiannaram immcdiately was rssued, however, wittr a condition that once Koheda market starts functioning, pahadiSharifl shall cease to be a market and there is no truth in the allegations of petitioners that, declaring of G.O.Ms.No. 39, Agriculture and Co_operation (Mkt_l) Deparrment, dt. 79-O9-2O|t3 as illegal, arbitrary, mala .fide, vrithout jurisdiction anrl contrary to the provisions of the Telangana (Ap & LS)Markets Act 1966 and Rules 1969. As Mamiclipally (Pahadishariff)(V), Balapur (M), Ranga Reddy Dist fails under the jurisdiction of the AMC, Gaddiannaram and as 1>er provisions contained in Slecticn 4 t3) (b) of the Act, a ,,llverv rrrarket committee shal I also establish in the notified area such nu mber t7 ofmarketsastheGovernmentmay,fromtimetotime,directfor the purchase and sale, solely of Vegetables or fruits and shall providesuchfacili|iesint}remarketaSmaybespecifledbythe Government from time to time by general or special order" and as per section a(3)(c) of the Act which reads as "The Market committee shall specify the limits of every market established or declared as a market by it and the Government may notify the markets with such limits, to be notified market area for the purpose of this Act", the AMC has submitted its proposals to the Director of Agril. Marketing for notification of Mamidipally Lr' (PahadiShariff) as No.AMCG/ Estt/ 1 6/ Mamid ipallv I 2023-24 I 24 r' Dt: 14 -O9-2O23 and the Director of Agrit Marketing in turn has forwarded the proposal to the Government for establishing Mamidipally (PahadiShariff) as Market under AMC Gaddiannaram and the a Market through GovernmenthasnotilredMamidipally(Pahadishariff)asmarket through G.O. Ms. No 39 dt' lg 'Og '2023' However' the implementation of said G'O-Ms' No' 39 was kept pending in view of status quo orders ol Hon'ble High Court dt' 19 'O9 '2023 ' It is further submitted that, the Government of Telangana have approved the Master plan layout of Koheda market through Government Memo'3773/Mkt-l1lA1 12021-7 Dr' 31-07 -2023 A&C(Mktg-ll) Dept. and cost estimates for an amount of t8 Rs. 399.96 Crores have been submitted for admin istrative sanction to the Government. Once administral.ive san(:tion is accorded by the Government, further course o]. action will be initiated for development of phase_I of Koheda Markel. under AMC, Gaddiannaram.

4. Submissions of Respondent No.4 th h their Counter A uit: The 4th respondent, while reiterating the averments merde b1.' petitioners as well as Respondents 1 to 3, states that ternporary market now established at tsata Singaram is not at all sufllcient for the traders to carrv on ltusiness; stake holders namelv gro\l,crs, purchasers and commissron agents are not able to czlrn'on business as it is located at a distance of more than 30 kilorn,:ters from the cily and that there are no minimum facilities at Biltasingaram, The 4erespondent A:;sociation had taken up the issue and intended to have another temporary market nearbl. ciry- which would cater the needs of all stake holders. Ar r"rat stage, petttioners managed the in_c:harge Secretary and got the letter dated 31.12.2012 written to Director of Marketing requesting not to have another market at Mamidipally T'he In-charge secretary acted to the tunes of petitioners for e.xtraneous reasons and writtert a letter to director r9 whichisunwarranted.OnthefloorofAssembly'theHon'ble Minister for Marketing had given assurance in respect of markets at Batasingaram, Koheda and Pahadi Sharif uide assurance No' 1648- The same was communicated to Secretary Agriculture & Co-Operative Department on 18'O5'2023' for implementation of theassrrrance.Inturn,theSecretary,AgricultureDepartment directedtheDirectorofMarketingtoimplementthesaid assurance. Thereafter the Hon'ble Minister and other offrcials in the meeting at Secretariat discussed about establishment of permanent market at Koheda and another temporary market at PahadiSharif in addition to the market at Batasingaram' Director of the ProPosals/ discussron of Marketing In accePtance L4.O9 .2023 to the Secretary addressed the letter dated Government.Atthesametime,AMC'Gaddiannaram(PIC) addressedalettertot}reDirectorofMarketingforestablishment of temporary market at Pahadi Sharif The Government issued notification under Sectron 4(3)(b) & (c) of Markets Act' notifying the market area vide G'O'Ms'No-39 dated 19'O9'2O23 Thus all the legal formalities has been completed and the business activities to be started and at that stage' the petitioner fiied two wnt petitions and this Hon'lcle court granted orders of statlls- quo. 20 It was further stated that Government is having power under Section +(3)(b) to establish in the notified area such number of markets for the purpose of sale of fruits and shall provide all the infrastructure. The petitioners have no right to stop establisrhment: of markets, against the interest of the members, the commission agents and opposing the enabling establishment of another market is against the spirit ancl object of Markets ar:t. The allegation that our association is a private association is false and misleading. In the welfare of tradr:rs and other stake h olders the members, approached t he Wak1. board and got lease for the ]and to an exten t ol. 12 acr.es for establishment of market, pcnding establishment ol perrnanent market a t Kolreda (v).The allegation that if market 1s estal)lished at Pahadi Sharif (Wakf Land), the 3.d respondent would lose its control, rs ric iculous and redundant. The marl.:et would run under the con[ror & supervision of AMC, Gaddiannaram like the other temporan, market at Batasingaram. The zrllegation that there is no nr:ed for additional market till Kohr:da market is illusory and without any reason. It is incorrect to state th at the market if estal)rished at private rand for which our association obtained lease, the committee would lose its control. All the stake \olders wcre <'onsulted and the authorities accepte(l for establishrnenr oi- aclciitional rnarket, except the petitioner. for 21 extraneous reasons. The allegation that ours is a private agency, is misleading and establishment of another tempora-ry market is intheinterestofallthestakeholders.Thepetitionermanaged the In-charge Secretary and got a letter dt'31 12 2022 written to Director Marketing, informing another market is not required' The letter of ln-charge Secretary is not only warranted and without jurisdiction The allegation that the decision of GovernmentisdetrimentaltoAMC,isincorrectanditisnot stated how it is detrimental to AMC and thus it is baseless allegation. It is incorrect to state that it would affect commission agents doing business and in fact it is for their convenience' another market at Pahadi Sharif has been planned it not only helps the commission agents but also the growers' purchasers and consumers. There is no restriction for the commission agents to do business only at one market and it is for them to carrlr on business at 2 places. The Markets act is a beneficial legislation in favour of farmers/ growers and the commission agents and purchasers, and it is not in 'their interest to object for establishment of another market in the city for the benefit of growers. The allegations that, the commission agents may Sustainhugelossesbecausetheypaysaleproceedstothe farmers on the same day is untenable and baseless' The other allegations are incorrect, baseless and invented for the purpose of ./ - 22 filing this Writ petition. The market at pahadi Sharif is located within the cit_v and it is so convenient for the grov.rers stitying at nearby villagles. In fact Batasingaram is on the higlrway of Hyderabad. \/rjayawada and causing so much traffic ja.rns and the area is not at all suitable for business. It is not for the petitioner to suggest that no other additional market is needed and it is for the Government and market authorities to decide how rn2ny merrkets to be established in the notihed market area. Jt is incorrect to state that the business at Batasingaram rs going on smooth and in fact severar traders are not at all carn.ing on business due to lack of facilities at Batasingar.am. I t rs also incorrect to state that establishment of anothcr tcrxporary market woui<l affect farmers, commission ag€rnts, Hzrmalis, purchasers. The additional temporary market at pahadi Sharif u.ould help al I the stake holders. The land now iclentified is a Wakf land anrl it was obtained on lease to enable the sr.ate to establish tem porary market to cater the needs oI alr the stakeholders. It is totally incorrect to state that Wakl land t:annot be utilized for market purpose and there is no embargo asi such under any lau.'. tt is not disputed land and WakI board already executed leasr: deed also. The very same petltioners filed WP.No.26044l',1,023 challenging an internal cr>mmunir:ation addressed by rhe AMC(prc) to Direcror dt. r4.o9.2o2," and \ .4-' /) obtained an ex Parte interim order of Status Quo on 19 'O9 '2023 ' The state government issued G'O'Ms'No 39 dt' 19 O9'2O23 and ex parte order of Status Quo was obtained on 19 'O9 '2023' As per the true interpretation of interim order they are entitled to continue our business at Pahadi Sharif as we started our business on that day' Any how to avoid complication' they restrained to do business at Pahadi Sharif' The notifrcation of government vide G.O'Ms'No'39 dt' lg 'Og '2023 issued under Section 4(3)(b) & (c) is legal, valid and is accordance with law' but challenged on untenable grounds and obtained Status Quo on 1g.Og.2023.lt is totally incorrect to state that there is no need for establishment of anotJrer temporary market and in fact it is so essential in the interest of all stake holders and more particularly the farmers/ growers 5 Re e toI counter led b Re I,lo-4 the Peti tioners: It is stated that wholesale fruit market was at Jam Bagh, but it was not a private market' as alleged' It is true that market was shifted to Gaddiannaram in 1986' after establishing a full-fledged wholesale market' in an extent of about Acs'22 'OO is a market where fruits were being guntas of land, and it It is true that permanent whole sale exported all these Yea rs 24 market is to tre established in Koheda in terms oj- G.O.Ms;.No- 1 1, dated 13.02 2O2O and the same is temporarily shifted to Batasingararrr. In fact, the 4h respondent itself fiI,:cl Writ petition against shifting of the market from Gaddiannar.am to Batasingararr. wrthout establishing the permanent ma rket at Koheda. The said Writ petition was dismissed and as per the direction in \[I.A. No.455 of 2O21, in terms of G.Cr.Ms.No .32, tne Government decided to shift the market to Batasingaram temporarily to construct a hospital at Gaddiannarant. The Government established full-fledged temporary market in Batasingaram with all the facilities in more than Ac 30 OO guntas of land where:rs the market at Gaddiannararn was, locatcd on Ac 22.OO guntas also. Therefore, the contentiort that Batasingaram market caters to only 5o% oI the traders, etc. is incorrect. It is also incorrect that the temporary rnarket n o.n, established at Batasingaram is not at all suffrcient for the traders to carry on business, and the stake holders viz. grol,r,ers, purchasers and commission agents are not able to carry on busrness as it is located at a distance of more than 30 KMs from the city and there are no rninimum facilities at Batasingaram. I3atasingaram temporary market has all the facilities. Government, jn a mala fide rnanner ancl by abusing the powers under Section 4 cf the Telangana (Agricurturar produce and Live Stock) Market:; Act, 25 1966, at the instance of the 4tl' respondent, in colourable exercise of power, issued the impugned GO, in spite of the status qzo order granted by this Court in W'P' No' 26044 of 2023 daled 1g.Og.2O23, which is nothing but contempt of court' The entire action is malo fide and Government has not considered the alleged need and requirement of additional market facilities' etc' whether temporary market at Batasingaram is not suffrcient for the traders to carry on business' Nothing is mentioned either in the impugned G.O. or in the proceedings of recommendation dated|4.og.2o23bytheDirector.Theentireproceedings emanatedattheinstanceofMinister,withoutapplicationofmind and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1966 to favour the 4s respondent, which is a private organization' This Court may call for the file and verify whether any such considerations with regard to non-availability of the facilities' insufficiency in Batasingaram market, etcetera were considered bY the Government and reasons for issuance of the impugned G'O' FurtheritisstatedthatBatasingaramisabuttingouterRing Road and the proposed wakf land at Pahadishariff is' in fact' a far-off place in Old City. Additional temporary market is being created to Iavour the 4s respondent organization for political and other extraneous considerations' Neither impugned G O' nor p.)crredi.rg" of the Director discloses any such considerations- 26 The allegatic,ns that impugned G.O. is legal. valid and in accordance vrith law, is untenable. The allegation that in the interest of all the stake holders more particularly, farmr:rs and growers are important for setting up of the market, is misconceived None of the considerations as skrted by the 4tr, respondent in paragraph 13 of counter affidavit, is considr:red. In fact, petitione:r, who is one of the stake holders, has not been consulted. Government, without appointing Committee to Market Committees. the Person in charge was clirected to send the proposals, which led to issuance of impugned G.Cr. Hence, it was stated that impugned is illegal, mala fide, colourable exe.cise of po\4,er, non-application of mind and contrary to ttre provis,ions of the Act, 1966, rvithout jurisdiction and without re:lsons, ars such, it is liable to be set aside.

6. Ileard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learne ci Senior Counsel appe;lring for Sri. M. Srinivas, counsel for petitioners, Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Goverrrment I)leader representing the offrce of Additional Advocate General on behall of Respondenl-s I to 3, Sri p. Gangaiah Naidu, iearnecl Senior Counsel on bt:half of Smt. Bhanu priya G, counsel fe1 r|tg 4tir respondent and perused the entire record. 7, Brie Histont on the iss-ue on hand: Government through G.O.Ms No' 126, dated 16.06.2012 identified four Markets in the combined State for relocation from their existing places due to expansion of towns, the Market yards are in the centre of the towns' Further due to moment of heavy vehicles people in and around market yard are subjected to congestion and traffic problem' The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide Procs'No LC2l1403/2006' dated 27 -O2-2O77 perrnitted the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ibrahimpatnam and Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet to handover advance possession of government iand of Acs'178 O9 in Survey No.507 (59.83 Acres) and in Survey No-548 11A'26 Acres) to the Agricultural Market Committee, Gaddiannaram' Government has Notified Market at Koheda under AMC Gaddiannaram through G.O.Ms.No. 1 1, Dt 13.O2.2O2O under Section (3)(a)&(b) and declaration of limits under Section +(3)(c) of Telangana (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966' The Secretary to Government, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department through U.O note No'55741C212021-3' dated O2-O7 -2O2I , requested the Agricultural Marketing Department for giving advance possession of land of Acs'21 36 in Survey Nos' 724 & 125 of Gaddiannaram village at lruit market at Gaddiannaram, pending formal transfer orders. AMC, Gaddiannararn, in its circular raleeting resolved unanimously to handover possession of Fruit Mirrket at Kothapet to Medical and Health Department for constru,:tion of super specia tif hospital while welcoming the ,lecision of the Government. Petitioners - Associations filed Wp. No. 1 5 196 of 2027 lo declzrre the action of respondents in c<intempl:,Lting to demolish the structures at Fruit Market yard Kothapet/ Gacldiannaram based on the ner,r,s item published. The Government uide G.O.Rt.No.397. dated 03.Og.202 1 a<:corded permission to Director oi Agriculturai Marketing Committee to handover land to an extent of Acs.22.05 oI AMC Gaddiannaram situated at Kc,thapet Fruit Market to Health. Medical and Family Welfare (C) Department, Ior construction of a Str-rper_speciality Hospital. Further, accorded permission to tl_^.e Diret:tor of Agricultural I\tarketing lor shifting the existing Fruit Market at Kothapet teraporariiy to Logistic park at Batasingaram, Abdullapurmet Mandal on monthly rental basis duly creating necessary additional facilities. On 07 .OE.2O27, AMC Gaddiannaram conducted a meeting with all the Commission rAgnts and informed its intension of shifting lruit trad,: from 29 Kothapet to Batasingaram Logistic Park' Petitioners Associations fi1ed WP.No.18801 of 2021 seeking to declare the impugned G.O.Rt.No.397 Agriculture & Cooperation (MKTG-II) dated Og.O8.2O2l as illegal and arbitrary' This Court passed orders dated O 1 .09.202 1 dismissing Writ Petitions No' 15 196 and 1B8O 1 of 2O2l wherein at Para No. 46, it is observed that "euen in temporary market, the Gouernment shnll take care and prouide all the required focilities at the earliest' One month time is granted from tod.ag for uacating the market at Gaddiannaram and to relocate in temporary market at Batosingaram till the permanent morket at Koheda is established"' Petitioners filed Writ Apepal No' 47O of 2O2l thereagainst. On )'6 'O9 '2021 , petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 227 54 of 2027 for declaring the action of respondents in attempting to demolish the constructions and petitioners without business establishments of providing/ establishing alternative wholesale fruit market with all infrastructure at any other suitable place' On 23'9'2021' Agricultural Market Committee had resolved to close the Market for fruit transactions ftom 25 'O9 '2O21 to facilitate shifting of the belongings of Commission Agents from Kothapet Fruit Market of AMCGaddrannaramtoNotifiedMarketatBatasingaramolAMC Gaddiannaram, in terms of judgement Dt'O 1 'O9'2O2 1 in W.P.Nos.15196 & 18801 of 2027. *"' 30 ,Government has Notified Market at Batasir.rgaram under AMC (iaddiannaram through G.O.Ms No. 32 Agnculture and Cooperation (Mktg-I) Department, Dt. 24_Og_2021 for shifting of existing Fruit Market at Kothapet temporarily to HTDL Logistic Park, Batasingaram for purchase and sale of Notified Agricultural Produce under Section 4(3)(b) of Telangana (Agricultural f,roduce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. On 2a.4.2O23, AIVIC addressed a letter to the Government lor sanction of loan for an amount of Rs.350 crores to AMC (,radCiannararn from 70 Agricultural Market Committees (AMCs) in the State having surplus funds,. On ).2.O5.2023. the Government have accorded permissron to engage COSAMB, Delhi as Institutional Consultant for development of Koheda Market through G.O. Rt.No. 194, dated 72.O5.2023 of A&C (Mkt.tl) Departmenr, On tg.5.2023, Government lrave accorded permission to the DoAM to sanction. an amount o[ Rs.35O crores to AMC, Gaddiannaram from 70 AMCs in the Urate through G.O.Rt.No.2l6, dated 19.OS.2O2j ot A&C(Mkt.ll) Department. On 15.6.2023 and 12.7.2023, AMC Gaddiannaram, through Director of Agriculture Marl<eting addressed a lerter to the Government for approval of IVlaster _Plan Lal.out lor Koheda Market in Survey Nos. 507/2 and S4g/2 3l in Koheda Village of Abdullapurmet Mandal On 3l'O7 '2023' Government approved Master Plan layout for Koheda through Govt. Memo No. 3773l Mkt'II/Al/2O21-1' dated 3l'O7'2023 ol A&C (Mkt.II) Department On Ol'O7 '2023 and 10'O7'2023' AMC Gaddiannaram, through Director of Agriculture Marketing addressed a letter to the Government for administrative sanction of Rs.365,62,66,427 l- (Rupees Three Hundred Sixty Five Crores Sixty Two Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twent5r Seven only) to take up 33 works under 'Design- Build' mode on TurnkeY Basis' 8 Analusis.' The main ground on which G'O Ms'No 39 dated |g.g.2o23isunderchallengeisthatthoughletterdated 31 .12.2022 issued by the Selection Grade Secretary (FAC) Agricultural Market Committee, Gaddiannaram to the Director of Agriculture Marketing categorically spells out the ground realities more particularly with respect to the existing Commission Agents Associations who are doing business at Fruit Market after shifting from Kothapet to Batasingaram is getting stable after 12 months and now again proposing Market at Mamidipally (Pahadishariff) would lead to disturbance of entire business' The saidletterwasnotreferred/discussedbytheDirectorof 32 Agriculture IVlarketing in his letter datecl 14.9.20123 addrt:ssed to the APC & Siecy. To Govt, Agril & Co-op (Mktg-I) Deprrrtment wherein he requested Government to notify Market at Mamidipallv (Pahadishariff) Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under AMC, Gaddiannaram under Section 4(3)(b) and declaration of limits under Section a(3)(c) of Telangana State (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. 'Ihe other important ground, according to petitioners. is that the r-rndertaking given before this Court by the authorities that they would develop a full_fledged market yard at Koheda in terms of G.O.Ms.No. I 1 dateci 73.,2.2O2O and br. virtue of the affidavir given in I.A.No.6 oi 2O22 in W.A.No. 455 of t2O2 l. I-astly, petitioners strenuously contend that the manner in u.hich G_O.Ms.No.39 dated 19.9.2023 abrupthr came into existence in a haphazard manner by completely givirLg a go by to the serious objections of the stake holders, Iarmers, growers, etcet€:ra. According to Respondents 1, 2 and ,3, on 28.04.2023, AIMC addressed letter to Government for sanction of Ioan for Rs.il50 crores to AMC Gaddiannaram lrom 70 Agricultural Vtarket Committees (AMCs) in the State having 33 surplus funds. On 12.05.2023, Government accorded permission to engage COSAMB, Delhi as Institutional Consultant for development of Koheda Market through G.O. Rt.No' 194, dated 12.05.202g of A&C (Mkt.ll) Department' On 19'O5'2O23' Government have accorded permission to DoAM to sanction an amount of Rs.35O crores to AMC, Gaddiannaram from 7O AMCs in the State through G.ORt'No.216, Dt: 19'05'2023 of A&C (Mkt.II) Department. On 15-06.2023 and L2'O7'2023, AMC Gaddiannaram, through Director of Agriculture Marketing addressed a letter to the Government for approval of Master Plan Layout for Koheda Market in Survey Nos 5O7/2 and 548/2 in Koheda Village of Abdullapurmet Mandal On 37 'O7 '2023 ' Government approved the Master Plan layout for Koheda through Govt. Memo No. 3773/ Mkt.IIlA1/2021-1, dated 3l'O7'2023 ol A&C (Mkt.ll) Department. On Ol-O7 '2023 and 7O'O7 '2023' AMC Gaddiannaram, through Director of Agriculture Marketing addressed a letter to Government for administrative sanction of Rs.365,62,66 ,427 / - (Rupees Three Hundred Sixty Five Crores Sixty Two Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Seven only) to take up 33 works under 'Design-Build' mode on T\rrnkey Basis. / / ,z+ On the contrary the 4m respondent spelt out in his counter that the said G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 19.O9.t.O23 was issued since the Government is having power under Section a(3)(b) of Act, 1966 to estabiish in the notified area such nurnber of markets for the purpose of sale of fruits and shall providt: all the infrastructurc. petitioners har.e no right to stop es[ablishment of markets, against the interest of members, commission agents and opposrn€1 the enabling establishment of another market is against the spirit and object of Markets Act. 9 Discussion & Conclusion: Governrnent notifieri Market at Kohcda und,:r AMC Gaddiannararn through G.O.tvls.Nc. 11, dated 13.O2.2O2Cr under Sections a(3)(;r)&(b) and declaration of limits under Sectiorr a(3)(c) oI the Telangzrna (Agricultural produce & Livestock) Markets Act,

1966. Government assured that it would provide all the facilities in temporary market yard in Batasingaram in terms of G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 24.O9.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.1t, dated

13.O2.2O2O and complete Koheda Market yart1. Government issued G.O.M s.No.32, dated 24.O9.2O21 declarinpl Batasingaram \ aq notified Market Yard in order to overcome the objections raised b1, Irctrtloners with regard to estztblishmr:nt of Batasingaram as a temporarv market and not provicling fa,:ilities, 35 including transfer from Gaddiannararn' Governrnent provided facilities in Acs.34.00 guntas of Government land and fruit market is being run with all facilities' As stated supra, this Court, while disposing of ttre Writ Appeais and Review Petitions, directed that permanent full-fledged market is to be established in Koheda within one year as undertaken by the Government' When suddenly, respondents resorted to shift temporarily to Batasingaram in 2O2O without providing any facilities' Writ PetitionswerefiledbeforethisCourtwhichdirectedrespondents (Agriculture and Cooperation (MKT-I) Department) to continue at Gaddiannaram. Thereafter, Government issued G'O'Rt No 397' dated O3.O8.2O21 directing the Director of Marketing to hand over fruit market at Gaddiannaaram to Health Department for construction of a super-speciality hospital and relocate the market temporarily at Batasingaram' Challenging the said decision, without there being any facilities for relocation of the market, Writ Petition No.18801 ot 2O2l was filed before this Court which was disposed of, on O1'O9'2O27 ' Thereafter' the matter was carried by way of Writ Appeal Nos' 451 of 2O2l and 47O of 2021, against the Order dated 01'09 2021 and a Division Bench of this Court directed initially to continue business at Gaddiannaram Market Yard. While Writ Appeals are pending' Government issued G.O.Ms No'32, dated' 24 09'2O21 deciaring 36 Batasingaram as notified Market yard in order to overcome the objections raised by petitioners with regard to establishrnent at Batasingaran) as a temporary market and not providing feicilities, including transfer from Gaddiannaram. Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions u,ere disposed of on 13.12.2Cl21 granting one month time to vacate petitioners and Government assured that it would provide all the facilities in temporary market yilrd in Batasingaran: in terms of G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 2,4.O9.2027 and G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 13.O2.2O2O and complete Koheda Market yard- Petitloners therein have carried the matter to the llon,ble Apex Conrt, .rhich. having found that certain i:;sues wr:re not considered, p,rrmitted petitioners to iile review. ()n liling rcvicw petitions, this Court passed final order on Og.O2.2022 pr.tviding one month tirne to vacate the premises and further directed the authorities to provide all the facilities at Batasinsaram t1) carry on the business. Petitioners shifted to Batasingararn and Government provideci facilities in Acs.34 0rl guntas of Government I and and the fruit market is beinil run u,ith all facilities. Furt ner, it was stated that this Court, rvhile disposing of Writ Appcals and Review petitions, directed that pernlanent fu-l1-fleclged rnarket js to be established in Koheda rvithin or-re year as undertaken by it. In fact, an extension petition was also filed by the Government subsequentll.,, uide I.A.No.6 ol 2022 in W.t Appeal No,455 of 2021, seeking extension of period for compliance with the undertaking given by the authorities that a full-fledged market yard witl be established at Koheda within one year. It is apposite to mention the date of frling of I'A'No'6 of 2022 inW.A.No.4SS of 2O2l which is on 19'lO'2O22' The then Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture Marketing and Co-operatron appears to have called an urgent meeting of the respondent authorities since there is no nominated agricultural market committee and directed/ dictated the Person-in-charge to submit proposals to set another temporary market at Pahadishariff under AMC, Gaddiannaram' It appears' as per the said decision and dictation from Government' without following due procedure and contrary to Section 4 of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act' 1966 and the Rules, 1969, which do not authorize number of temporary markets and the3'd respondent, as per the said direction' Lr'No' submitted AMCG/Estt/16/Mamidipallvl2023-24' dated 14 09'2023 bv enclosing a Draft Notification to the 2nd respondent to notify Mamidipally Village of PahadiShariff' Balapuram Mandal under the Agricultural Market Committee, Gaddiannaram under Section 4 (3) (b) of the 1966 Act and the Rules' 1969 ' On the said ProPosals J6 recommendation of the 3,d respondent, on the velJ same day, the 2"i1 respondent sent proposal Lr. No.AGM- STRY/SIII/Si3 3T7O /2023, dated t4.Og.2023 to t sr respondent-Siecretary to Government, Agriculture Marketing and Cooperation ::or Notihcation proposing to have the. market vard at Mamidipally Village of pahadishariff, Balapuram Mandal rn Waqf land, without. there being any dtle or license to the said land at Pahadishariff to the market committee. Aggrieved by the proposals, petitioners approached this Court b,y way cf Writ Petition No.26O44 of 2023 declaring initiation of proceeclings in Lr.No. AMCG lEstt/ i6 /Marnidipaily /2023-24, dared 14.Ag.2023 adciressed by the 3.d respondent to the 2.,d rr:sponde:tt ancl Lr.No.AGM-St'Ryi SIII/ 5337 70 i2023, 14.eq.2023 addressed b-y- the 2"cl respondent to the l sr respor.rdent as illegai, arbitrary, maia fid-e, without jurisdiction and c,rntrary to the provisions of the 1966 Act and 1969 Rules and r:ontrarv to the undertaking g:ven before this Court bv the author_ities thi..t they would develop a full-fledged market yard at Koheczr in terms of G.O.Ms.No. t l, dated 13.O2.2O2O and by virtue ot the alfidavit given in I.A.Nc,.6 of 2022 in Wrir Appeal No. 455 of 202 1 . This Court passeci interim order on lg.Og.2o23 to maintain .Slafus_ guo. Petitioners state that Government, with a back-date, to order, had issued the impugned G.O., over reach this Court's 39 having knowledge about the order of this Court' Except statlng as direction of the Government, no reasons are stated as to why temporary market is required at Mamidipally Village of Pahadishariff, Balapuram Mandal lt was aiso stated that the 3'd respondent-Agricultural Market Committee does not possess any land at Mamidipally Village of Pahadishariff, Balapuram Mandal nor it has any lease in its favour, and the 3'd respondent- Agricultural Market Committee has neither developed nor provided any facilities at the alleged place at Mamidipally Village of Pahadishariff, Balapuram Mandal' It is palpable from a bare perusal of the record that in spite of the specific request and objections, Government within lrve days from the date of proposal i'e' 14 'O9 '2023' even though an interim order was passed on 19 'O9 '2023 in Writ Petition No.26O44 of 2023 to maintain stotus quo, the Government' issued the impugned G.O. As rightly contended by petitioner that out of five days, 77.O9.2023 (Sunday) and 18'09'2023 (Vinayaka Chaviti) are hoiidays. Government having knowledge about the of market at Koheda and having permanent establishment of more than Rs'350 crores and sanctioned huge revenue thereafter, abruptly issuing the impugned G'O' is something in total contradiction to its own stand Further' it is the specific 40 case of all thr: stake holders and Commission Agents Associations that business is getting settled after 12 months after sh ifting of the premises from Kothapet to Batasingaram anci in vielv of ease to farmers, growers, etcetera through Outer Ring Road, disturbing the same by re-directing to MarrLidipally (Pahadishariff) would cause great hardship and to that effect, Special Grade Secretary, AMC had also addressed letter dated 37 .72.2022 to the Dire ctor of Agricultural Ma rketing, Governmeni of Telangana and brought to his notice about the difficulties thrlt would be faced by the stake holders. However, the Director of Agricultural Ma.:keting, Govt of Telangana, by giving a complete go by tc, the said letter dated 3 1 . 12.tao22 and without consulting the stake holclers for whose purpose, Government established market at Gaddiannararn and for whose purpose, at the acljacent place at Koheda, pern'ranent Market is also coming, issuine the impugned G.O. is unfair, irrational and unreasonable and violar-es the petitioners' rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Cons:itution of India. It is apposite to refer some of the decisions in this regard. The Flonble Apex Court in State oJ U.p. u. Vijag Kumar 41 d to Uttar Pradesh that altered the Agorutall while considering the issue rn regar Government issuing a Government Order procedure for selection of candidates for govemment posts' had held that government cannot act in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Govemment orders that violate principles of fairness or that result in unreasonable outcome can be struck down and that a G.O. can be quashed if it is arbitrary or irrational' thereby violating the principle of fairness and reasonableness' Likewise, in State oJ Haryana a' Rattan Singh2 rvhile considering dismissal of employee for alleged misconduct by way oI government order' held that if a government order is passed with mala ftde intention' it is unconstitutional and can be struck down and that if a G'O' is issued for ulterior or bad faith purpose, such as for personal or political gain' it can be quashed by the courts. Further in Union oJ India tt' DeokiNandan of the central Aggarual3, while dealing with the lsstre government issuing an order that contradicted its own earlier order concerning promotion of employees in government service' held that inconsistent or conflicting government orders could be ' (2ooo) 5 scc 467 ' t1g77l 2 SCC 49 I '(1992) 3 scc 132 4) struck down if they undermine clarity and violate the prirLciple of consistency in governance. Government orclers must be consistent rvith earlier orders and precedents unless there are significant and justifiable reasons for deviation. It is not forthcoming from counter of the Government as to why in an abrupt manner, the impugned G.O. was issued ar_ the behest of the 41h respondent that too when Government had aiready sanctioned inore than 35o crores for establishment of Koheda Market adjacent to Batasingaram Market yard. Further, the Commission Agent Associrations, Farmers and (irorvers, etcetera all have requestecl to continue at Batasingaram onry ano also expressecr their criflrcurties and disturbances that may be faced by them in vieu,ol the sudclen change in establishmen t of another temporary market yrtrd at Mamidipally fPahadishariffl. ]t is also interesting to note that no justifiable reasons are mentioned in the proposal letter dated I4.9.2O23 issued by the Director of Agriculturat Marketing to APC & Secy. to Govt, Agril & Co-op (Mktg_I) Dept, Ciovernment of Telangana as tc why there is necessity of establishrrent of Market at Mamidipatly (pahadishariff) (V). The speed, in u,hich the Government proceeded itsell shows thctr mallt-,fide and artritrary action on extrarreoLls I \ 43 considerations and political reasons, at the behest of the 4*t respondent that too violating the undertaking given before the Division Bench of this Court in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in Writ Appeal No.455 of 2O2l as to the establishment and development of full- fledged market yard at Koheda in terms of G'O'Ms-No' 11 dated 13.2.2O2O issued by the Government itself' As such, the impugned G.O. is liable to be set aside, being abuse of power and being unreasonableness- It is settled law that a Government Order/ Executive Instruction can be quashed if it is arbitrary or irrational, thereby violating the principle of fairness and reasonableness. In the instant case, this Court opines for the reasons stated supra issuing of impugned G'O' at the behest of the4tl,respondentisarbitrary,irrationalandunreasonable thereby violating the principles of fairness and reasonableness as such, the said G.O' is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 10 costs.

11. are closed In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed' No Consequently, the miscellaneous applications \\i \ l 44 W.P.[o.26O44 of 2o23

12. In view of the discussion and findings recorded in the precedingl paragraphs, no further orders are necessary to be passed. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 13 closed. To, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand //TRUE COPYII ASSISTANT RE SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL GISTRAR Bebrior.r OFFICER

1. The_Principal Secretary-to Govemment, Agriculture and Co_operation (MKT lll) Depa(ment. Srare of Tetangi"r,-$irLi;rili,-n"voer"oao

2. The Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing, Urdugalli, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.

3. The Grade Secrelarv. Agricultural Market Committee, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad, GaddiainarEm, HvotraUal].' 4. One CC to SRt M.SRIN|VAS, Advocate, tOpUCI 5. One CC to G.BHANU pRIyA, Advocate, tOpUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR AGRICULTURE, High Court for the State of Telangana. louTl

7. O,.'e. CC to SRI C.HAR' ,REETH, SC forAgriculturat Market Committee loPUcl

8. Two CD Copies. BSK P""(. HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 iH:: slAr {' Bo <i 24 t[B 20m t.. (_ ),4 "'l.fr^.r,_.=: ,a-( * cP 'i z a ! COMMON ORDER WP.No.27366 & 26044 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P.No.27366 OF 2023 & DISMISSING THE W.P.No.26044 OF 2023 WITHOUT COSTS f+v\ ,\uC t+\