FRUIT COMMISSION AGENTS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 149

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

FRUIT COMMISSION AGENTS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

-- FRUIT COMMISSION AGENTS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. V. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 [A. K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. J Agricultural Produce Market Committee-Revision ofrent of shops/godowns-Challenged-Held: Various factors were taken into consideration by Market Committee before fixing the revised rent- Fixation ofrent is an executivefunction andjudiciary cannot interfere with the same except on Wednesbury principles-High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition-Administrative Law-Executive decision-Interference with. Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR (1996) SC 11 and S. C. Chandra and Ors. v. State ofJharkhand and Ors. , JT (2007) 104 SC 272, relied on. "The Spirit ofLaws" by Montesquieu, XIth Chapter, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2426- 2428 of 2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 17. 2. 1997 and 29. 4. 1999 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W. P. No. 2820of1992 and W. P. Rev. Misc. P.

Nos. 9554 & 9555of1997 respectively. M. N. Rao and T. V. Narayana, T. N. Rao, Manjeet Kirpal, Paramjeet and D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellants. --( R. Sundarvardhan, B. Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar, D. Bharathi Reddy and Debojit Borkakati for the Respondents. • The following Order ofthe Court was delivered: ORDER "<' 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals under Article 136 ofthe Constitution have been filed against the impugned judgment ofthe Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 17. 2. 1997 in W. P. No. 2820of1992 which has followed the decision ofthe High Court dated 17. 2. 1997 in W. P. No. 2806 of 1992. 3. We have carefully perused the decision ofthe High Court in W. P. No. 2806 of 1992 and find no infirmity therein. ~ 4. The facts ofthe case are that the wholesale business in fruits was located at Jambagh area in Hyderabad city.

Because of its location on either side ofthe road it gave rise to a lot of traffic problems, and there were no facilities to the sellers and purchasers. Hence to ease the growing traffic problems and provide better marketing facilities the Agricultural Market Committee acquired 22 acres ofspacious land at Gaddiannaram on the outskirts of Hyderabad city at a cost of Rs. 3. 5 crores in 1985 for shifting ofthe wholesale market there. It is alleged by the respondents ...... ' that the type-design and proposed construction of shop-cun1-godowns (sheds) was taken up only after consultation with the representatives of the Fruit Commission Agents who were doing business in Jambagh area, and shops were constructed accordingly. 5.

A procedure was formulated duly constituting a sub-committee for allotment ofshops, and the sub-committee invited the representatives ofthe Fruit Commission Agents, and after consultation with them the shopcum-godowns were allotted on lease for eleven months based on the l ~ quantum of business turnover ofeach individual subject to payment of monthly rent as fixed by the I gicu'·ural Market Committee, Hyderabad. 6. On allotment ofshop-cum-godowns the Commission agents have shifted their wholesale business to the Fruit Market at Gaddiannaram. It is stated that the Market Committee has constructed shop-cum-godowns on semi-permanent basis, the height ofeach shed wall being 14' with brick masonry wall in cement mortar, well fabricated steel tubular trusses covered by CGI sheets. 7. The appellants have alleged that the sheds are not pucca ,. _ constructions and are not permanent in nature, but this has been denied FRUIT COMMISSION AGENTSASSOCIATIONv. GOVT.

151 OFANDHRAPRADESH by the respondents. It is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on this issue, and there is no discussion on this question in the impugnedjudgment ofthe High Court. Hence it is evident that this point was not pressed before the High Court. 8. The dispute in this case is about the rent. The rent was fixed by the Market Committee taking into consideration the view expressed by the Fruit Commission Agents, and the Government vide G. O. Rt. No. 589 Food & Agriculture Department dated 6. 4. 1987 approved of the rent. The Market Committee reviewed the rent after two years on the recommendation ofthe Executive Engineer ofthe Market Committee. 9. The respondents have alleged that they have spent Rs. 3. 50 crores for purchase ofthe land, and have provided various amenities and facilities to the traders e. g. bank building, ryot rest house, open auction platforms, laying ofcement roads in the market yard incurring expenditure ofRs. 3 crores etc. apart from spending Rs.

2 lacs every month for upkeep of the market yard. Water and electric supply, drainage and sanitation ,D arrangements have also been made there. 10. It may be mentioned that the appellant Fruit Commission Agents Association had also filed W. P. No. I0026 of 1992 in the High Court praying for a direction to the respondents to construct a pucca permanent market complex and a learned Single Judge by order dated 4. 12. 1992 directed the Market Committee to construct permanent sheds and hand them over to the traders within six months. Aggrieved, appeals were filed being W. A. No. 342 of 1993 and 172 of 1993 which were disposed off with a direction to make Ci. rtain improvements. It is alleged by the respondents that accordingly cement concrete was laid in between the two platforms, and other improvements were made. It is alleged that if the present sheds are converted into R. C. C. structures it will involve huge further cost.

It is alleged that the present shops-cum-godowns were constructed by the Market Committee in 1986 after consultation with the appellant association. Concessional rent was initially charged, and when the rent was revised W. P. Nos. 2806 of 1992, 2820 of 1992 and 3565 -( of 1992 were filed, in which the impugned judgment was passed. 11. It is alleged by the respondents that they have already spent Rs. 6. 50 crores for this purpose (Rs. 3 crores for the land, and Rs. 3. 5 crores for the constructions). Two big size platforms for auction ofthe fruits have been built in the market yard at a cost ofRs. 62 lacs. Apart from that, 'y one electronic weigh bridge and one cold storage plant with capacity 3000 M. T. have been provided there. The Market Committee has constructed RCC platforms for conduct of auctions, and has provided for free electricity, garbage disposal etc. Rs. I. 75 lac is spent every month for garbage disposal. 12.

It is alleged that ifpucca shops have to be built by the Market Committee it will eP. tail further expenditure of Rs. 3. 70 crores for only 51 shops-cum-godowns. ~ 13. On the facts and circumstances ofthis case, we find there is no merit in these appeals. In the judgment in W. P. No. 2806 of 1992 which has been followed in the impugned judgment in W. P. No. 2820 of 1992 of 17. 2. 1997' it has been clearly mentioned that various factors were taken into consideration by the Market Committee before fixing the revised rent. . D 14. Fixation ofrent is an administrative function and the court cannot sit as a Court ofAppeal over administration decisions vide Tata Cellular ..... L v. Union ofIndia, AIR (1996) SC 11. Hence the view taken by the High Court is correct. 15. As we have held in S. C. Chandra and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. , JT (2007) 10 4 SC 272, the judiciary should exercise restraint and should not ordinarily encroach into the legislative or executive domain.

In our opinion fixing of the rent is an executive function and hence the judiciary cannot interfere with the same except on Wednesbury principles. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and ordinarily one organ ofthe State should not encroach into the domain ofanother. Montesquieu's theory ofseparation ofpowers (Xlth Chapter ofhis book 'The Spirit ofLaws') broadly applies in India too. 16. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we dismiss these appeals but with the request to the Market Committee to consider any . ,,_ genuine grievances ofthe appellant expeditiously. No costs. RP. Appeals dismissed.