ORDER
1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Gram Panchayat of Velpur, Atchampet Mandal, Guntur District and Petitioner No.2 is a successful bidder in the auction conducted by Petitioner No.1 for the cattle shandy or weekly bazaar to be held from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998. The 1st respondent is the Assistant Director of Marketing, Guntur, 2nd respondent is the person-incharge of Agricultural Market Committee, Krosur Mandal, Guntur District and 3rd respondent is a member of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency Krosur Mandal. It is pleaded that Velpur Gram Panchayat had been running cattle shandy within the Gram Panchayat area for the last 20 years or more by holding public auction. It is contended by the petitioners that by virtue of Section 104 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act') all the public markets vest in the Gram Panchayat and it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to provide places for use as public markets and further more the Panchayat is entitled to collect fees on animals brought for sale and sold in such markets by virtue of Section 104(2)(d) of the Act. Several other provisions are also pointed out from the Act to show the powers of the Gram Panchayat to collect the licence fee and the power to prevent sale in or on open public roads etc. It is also contended that all the income accruing from such above mentioned sources of Gram Panchayat revenue form part of Gram Panchayat funds. It has been the practice to sell the right to have public markets by public auction by granting licences for a period of one year from 1st April to 31st March and accordingly it was done in favour of the 2nd petitioner. It appears that by virtue of such public auction, the Petitioner No.2 became successful bidder, paid the bid amount, the bid was accepted by the Gram Panchayat by its resolution on 25-3-1997 and proceedings No.ROC1/97 dated 25-3-1997 were passed permitting the 2nd petitioner to collect the fee for the period from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998. He paid Rs.19,500/- towards the total bid amount and therefore he is entitled to have the weekly shandies in that Gram Panchayat area
2. It appears that Respondent No.3 made a representation to the Hon'ble Ministerfor Panchayat Raj and Rural Division and his representation was sent to Respondent No.1 who in turn forwarded it to Respondent No.2 directing the petitioner-Gram Panchayat not to conduct auction for the period from 31-3-1997 and therefore, Respondent No.2 issued the impugned orders in Rc.No.31/97 dated 27-3-1997 which was served on the Petitioner No.1 on 29-3-1997 directing him not to conduct auction for cattle shandy for the subsequent period beyond 31-3-1997 and also to shift the cattle shandy presently functioning at Velpur Gram Panchayat to the Market yard at Krosur.
3. It is contended that by virtue of the provisions of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act (for short 'Agricultural Markets Act') and by virtue of specific provisions of Section 7(6), unless all the steps are gone into, no market can be held within a particular area of the Gram Panchayat and therefore in view of the rights of the 2nd petitioner to hold cattle shandy as per the public auction and the resolution of the Panchayat, such proceedings issued by 2nd respondent are said to be illegal, arbitrary and cannot be enforced. It is also contended that the impugned proceedings are outcome of the malice in law and malice in fact. It is also contended that such proceedings are issued without notice or opportunity to the petitioners and therefore violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the impugned proceedings are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India Therefore, the petitioners have sought for appropriate directions in the nature of mandamus or any other order to declare the impugned proceedings dated 27-3-1997 as null and void and to set aside the same.
4. On behalf of the respondents, 2nd respondent has only filed a counter. The impugned proceedings are justified both in laws and facts. It is contended that originally a notified area had been declared under Section 3(3) of the Agricultural Markets Act under G-O.Ms.No.586 dated 28-6-1976 for Sattenapalli Taluq comprising ofSattenapally, Phirangipuram, Medikondur, Pedakurapadu, Krosur, Bellamkonda, Rajupalem, Muppalla and Achampet mandate of Guntur District and a Market Committee had been constituted for such notified area by the Government which was notified in the gazette dated 25-11-1976. After establishment of the Market Committee, the Government has declared Market area and notified market area in respect of the said markets under GO.Ms.No.3 dated 3-1-1977. As per the said G.O. the entire area within the limits of Gram Panchayat of Krosur was declared as Market area and 16 k.m. radius around the Krosur was declared as notified Market area as far as Krosur Market is concerned. The Government issued new notified area in G.O.Ms.No.419 dated 26-7-1993 for the area comprising Krosur, Achampet, Bellamkonda, Rajupalem and Pedakurapadu Mandate and subsequently the Market Committee, Krosur was constituted and the Market Committee established market yard at Krosur declaring the limits of the market as per Section 4(3)(c) of the Agricultural Markets Act by its resolution dated 31-1-1995. The proposals for declaring the Market area in respect of Krosur Market and 25 k.m. radius around the office of the Market Committee, Krosur as 'Notified Market Area' have been submitted to the Director of Marketing on 24-2-1995 and for notification to be made by the Government in that regard under Section 4(4) of the Agricultural Markets Act. It is contended that such an area is within the market area notified and therefore the Market Committee, Krosur is entitled to regulate the notified Agricultural Products and Live stock and products of livestock within the said notified Market area as it was being regulated earlier. It is contended that the proceedings issued by Respondent No.1 which is implemented by Respondent No.2 has been in accordance with law as the Gram Panchayat had no powers or jurisdiction to regulate such markets. It is contended that the relevant provisions of the Act has nothing to do with the directions of holding markets in the declared area or notified area as it is within the exclusive powers of the Market Committee. The plea of the 1st petitioner that the right to hold weekly bazaaror cattle shandies in the Gram Panchayat area has been sold out to the 2nd petitioner is denied. It is contended that such proceedings are no doubt issued after receipt of the impugned orders from Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The right of the 2nd petitioner to hold markets or weekly shandies by virtue of such auction in his 'favour is challenged Such proceedings are said to be repugnant and inconsistent with the provisions of both the Acts in question It is contended that the Gram Panchayat will not be in a position to provide basic facilities as is required and as could be provided by the Market Committee to the markets. It is also denied that holding of cattle shandy at a distance of six kilo metres from Velpur serves no public good and the impugned order is malice in law and malice in fact. The proposed shifting of cattle shandy is justified for the purpose of public at large. It is contended that the petitioners were not entitled to any notice before passing such proceedings, much less, an opportunity of being heard and the contention that the impugned proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice is denied. As a whole, the respondents have contended that the petitioners have no right to seek any relief in this writ petition.
5. Although the respondents have denied or challenged the public auction and the right to have weekly shandies within the Gram Panchayat area of Velpur, they have denied the proceedings issued by the petitioners alleging that such proceedings are malice to be got up or brought out after the impugned proceedings were issued. This Court is not convinced that such proceedings have been got up or brought up after the impugned proceedings were issued. The resolution was passed on 25-3-1997 and the 1st petitioner issued the proceedings Ro.C.No. 1/97 on the same date granting rights to the Petitioner No.2 to collect the fees for cattle shandy from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998 in terms of the conditions of the auction regarding which the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 19,500/-under challan dated 27 -3-1997. The impugned proceedings are dated 27-3-1997. The petitioners have clearly pleaded that it was served only on 29-3-1997 regarding whichthere is no denial or material produced to contradict- Therefore, by the lime the impugned proceedings were served on the petitioners, the right to collect the fees for weekly shandies had been completed in favour of Petitioner No.2 by Petitioner No. 1. There is nothing to indicate from the records that any such proceedings were brought out either hurriedly or with the knowledge of the impugned proceedings.The impugned proceedings are issued by Respondent No.2 which reads thus:
'THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETCOMMITTEE KROSURFrom ToSri Shafillah Khan The Divl. PanchayatDesignation : Officer, GunturPerson-inchargeStation : Krosur-522 410Rc.No.31/97 Dated 27-3-1997 Sir,
Sub: Cattle Shandy functioning at Velpur Gram Panchayat under Atchampet Mandal-Shifting of Shandy to the Market yard, Krosur - non-conducting of auction entrusting the right to organised shandy at private premises-requested.
Ref: (1) Representation of Sri Gottimukkala Balaram Krishnam Raju with endorsement of the Hon'ble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Division, Hyderabad dated 12-3-1997.
2) Lr.No-374/97 dated 20-3-97 Assistant Director of Marketing, Guntur.
I am to inform you that in the representation received with endorsement of the Hon'ble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Division With reference second, necessary direction were given to shift the cattle shandy presently functioning at private premises at Velpur Gram Panchayat to the Market Yard, Krosur. As per the Provisions of 7(6) of the A.P, (AP & LS) Market Act, transaction of notified commodities live stock should not be held outside the market yard.
It was learnt that as per usual practice, you are entrusting the right to conduct cattle shandy to the highest bidder in open auction. In view of the steps now being taken to centralise the trade to the Market yard forthwith, I request you not to conduct auction for subsequent period beyond 31-3-1997.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Person-incharge
Agricultural Market Committee Krosur'
7. Basically such proceedings were issued on the representation made by Respondent No.3 to the Hon'ble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Division and on the instructions of the 1st respondent by letter No.374/97 dated 20-3-1997. Barring this, no other material is produced by the respondents as to the genesis of such proceedings. The impugned proceedings clearly prevent the petitioners from having the cattle shandy in Velpur Gram Panchayat with a direction to shift it to the Market yard at Krosur. Barring reference to Section 7(6) of the Markets Act prohibiting the transaction out side the market yard, no other reason is given in the impugned proceedings. The second part of the impugned proceedings is only a hearsay based without verification of the matter or enquiry into such serious matter by the concerned authorities including Respondents 1 and 2. No such provision under the Agricultural Markets Act giving such powers to the authorities is mentioned therein. Therefore, on the face of it, the impugned proceedings are arbitrary, not supported by any legal basis and also violative of the principles of natural justice and it has affected the rights of the petitioners in the matter of holding weekly shandies and collecting fees by Petitioner No.2 for the benefit of 1st respondent. There is no doubt that the impugned proceedings have emanated only because the Hon'ble Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Division forwarded the representation of Respondent No.3 in regard to his allegation without further examination or enquiry in the mailer. Therefore, primarily the impugned proceedingscannot be supported in law. However, the right of the petitioners to have weekly shandies within the area of Velpur Gram Panchayat is being seriously questioned by the respondents on the ground of legality, propriety and the jurisdiction in the light of the provisions of the Agricultural Markets Act. Mr. Giridhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 have done their best in support of their respective contentions. They have not spared any pains in dealing with the serious questions in the case. Not -withstanding the legality, propriety or otherwise of the impugned proceedings and the right of the petitioners in regard to the weekly shandies in the Gram Panchayat area of Velpur on facts as above, interesting questions have arisen to be resolved in this writ petition viz., whether the Petitioner No.1, Velpur Gram Panchayat can be prevented from having the markets or agricultural markets within the area over which the jurisdiction of Panchayat extends, and whether the Provisions of the Agricultural Markets Act over ride the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act
8. The Agricultural Markets Act came into force on 29-11-1996 when it was published in the A.P. Gazelle as required under Section 1 (3) of the Act. This Act is intended to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock and the establishment of market in connection therewith. Before the Panchayat Raj Act came into force. A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 was in force in addition to other enactments regarding Mandala Praja Parishads. Zilla Praja Parishads and Zilla Pranalika etc. 1986 and also A.P. Local Bodies Electoral Reforms Act, 1989 and all these are came to be repealed under Section 276 of the Panchayat Raj Act. In other words both the Agricultural Markets Act and also Gram Panchayats Act. 1964 were simultaneously in force. Unconlrovertedly, before the Panchayat Raj Act came into force, the Agricultural Markets Act was operative for the area covered by Velpur Gram Panchayat comprising several villagesregarding several notifications had been issued as above, and the Agricultural Markets Act had overriding effect by virtue of Section 30 of the Act which reads:
'Nothing in any law providing for the establishment, maintenance or regulation of a market or the levy of fees therein shall apply to any market established under this Act or affect in any way the powers of a market committee, in respect of such market'.
9. In substance in so far as the establishment, maintenance or regulation of market or levy of the fees to any market established under the Act, no other law had the operation or would affect the provisions under the Act in relation to such subjects meaning thereby even the Gram Panchayats Act which was in force as on that date had no operation in regard to such subjects in view of the over riding effect under the said provision. In other words, it was the exclusive realm or the power of the authorities under the Agricultural Markets Act to deal with such subjects supra which should include holding of weekly shandies or weekly bazaars etc. It must be emphatically recorded that but for the Panchayat Raj Act, the respondents were totally justified in preventing the petitioners from having such a weekly shandy. It is because of the Panchayat Raj Act which came into force on 30-5-1994, we are examining the effect of the provisions of the Agricultural Markets Act vis-a-vis the latter Act.
10. Mr. Venkateswarlu, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2 pointed out from the provisions of Agricultural Markets Act that it is the exclusive region of the Market Committee constituted under the provisions of the Act to establish, to hold and to regulate the markets in such area declared according to certain provisions not withstanding any provision in any law for the time being in force under Section 30 of the Agricultural Markets Act which include any future law also. It may be difficult to accept such a contention. The expression inSection 30 as above is not a sweeping effect as it has not dealt with tense in grammar. It has not used the expression 'the law for the time being in force'. Therefore the expression. 'in any law' mentioned in the provision should be understood as any law which was in force as on the date when such an Act was in force as no law can contemplate the future laws and in anticipation no law can over ride the future laws. In order to note the effect of the over-riding provision in a statute, the provisions of the latter Act like the Panchayat Raj Act have to be examined. The conspicuous absence of the expression in Section 30 of the Agricultural Markets Act 'the law for the time being in force' is indicative that it had no prospective intendment to prevent the future laws to be over-ridden by the present law, as the expression 'the law for the time being in force' will speak of past tense, present tense and present continuous tense and not the future tense as it is populously stated that the law is not static and it is dynamic and it is for the needs of the people and the progress of the society and the necessity of the polity to bring about the law in a given situation and for the purpose and benefit of the society. It cannot be forgotten that there are many obsolete or dead laws which are to yield to the new laws, however, such matter depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case to be tested in the light of the laws which are passed subsequently as in the case of Panchayat Raj Act.
11. The overriding effect contemplated under Section 30 of the Agricultural Markets Act has got definite parametres viz., that if there is any other law when the Market Committee may come into force for establishment, maintenance or regulation of a market or the levy of fee therein that was not to be made applicable to any market established under the Act nor would affect in any way the powers of the market in respect of such a market to mean thereby that no such law would affect any market constituted by virtue of Section 4 of the Act and would not affect the powers of the Market Committee in respect of such a marketconstituted under the said provision Therefore, in order to attract Section 30, it must be first established that a market had been established in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. Moreover, Section 30 has no repugnancy to any subject matter of the nature for all the lime, and it is only incidental and subject to the conditions laid down therein. It is also restrictive only to such laws which provide for establishment, maintenance and regulation of a market and not the entire law, and the whole or like the Panchayat Raj Act, which is going to be examined as to the powers in regard to markets etc.
12. Mr. Giridhar, the learned advocate is right in relying upon a Full Bench pronouncement of this Court in M.S. Murty v. State, : AIR1977AP147 in support of his contention that there cannot be any market to be regulated by the Market Committee unless all the five incidents are gone into in accordance with Section 4 of the Agricultural Markets Act. The implication of the provision Section 4 for the constitution of the Market Committee and the market area etc., and the markets within the area of the Market Committee can be found in para 6 of the pronouncement and to be repealed usefully to read as under:
'Thus, to clarify the concepts and the different terminologies used in the Act, it may be pointed out that the notified area is the largest geographical and physical unit. There may be a single Market Committee which is a body corporate and it operates over the entire notified area. The market committee has to set up one or more markets within the area of its operation as may be directed by the Government. After the directions have been issued by the Government, the Market Committee has to establish a market or markets in accordance with the directions of the Government and for each market it has to fix, under Section 4(3)(c), the limits of the market and the limits of the market area referred to as the 'market area'. Under Section 4(4), the market area and such other area adjoining thereto as maybe specified by the Government in the notification issued under that Section becomes the notified market area. Thus, the largest physical unit is the notified area is the notified market area pertaining to each market established by the Market Committee. Within the notified area is the market area which defines the limits of every market and within the market are the actual markets where the notified agricultural produce is bought or sold and where facilities have to be provided by the market committee for buying and selling these notified commodities. It is obvious that all these different five steps have to be completed before the machinery set up under the Act starts functioning,'' ?
Section 30 has to be read with Section 4 of the Act to mean that such an overriding effect is subject to the conditions laid down in Section 4 and nothing beyond that. When no law like Panchayat Raj Act was in force on that day, the law makers while enacting Markets Act could not have anticipated as to what would happen in future if there is any other law regulating such a market or the marketing under specific powers incorporated therein. It cannot be forgotten that the purpose and the object behind Markets Act was to be envisaged at the time when it was brought into force and not for all the time. Therefore, now the only question is whether such a power of the market committee by virtue of Section 4 of the Act can be taken to have continued or remained after the Panchayat Raj Act came into force.
13. The Panchayat Raj Act came into force on 30-5-94. It was intended to provide for the constitution of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Praja Parishad and Zilla Praja Parishads, for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereof In the statement of objects and reasons, the purpose behind the bringing of such a legislation has been enumerated and declared after a lot of deliberation and after a decision of the Cabinet Subcommittee and an Expert Committee, and in view of the constitutional amendment, the law was enacted. The real basis for enactingsuch a law was due to Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 with a view to mainly strengthen and revitalise the Panchayat Raj bodies so that they can subserve the teeming millions that live in the rural areas. By virtue of such 73rd amendment of the Constitution, a special Chapter IX regarding the Panchayats from Article 243 to Article 243O were incorporated, and similarly Chapter IX-A with reference to Municipalities was also incorporated. Article 243(d) defines 'Panchayat' as an institution of self-government constituted under Article 243B, for the rural areas. Notwithstanding any legislation like Panchayat Raj Act, such a panchayat could be constituted as a self-government for a rural area by the Government. Article 249 of the Constitution was not merely intended to pass a resolution by the States in regard to panchayats, but it by itself provided the machinery for constitution of the panchayats to be self-government in accordance with Article 243B of the Constitution. Therefore, a Panchayat so constituted under the said Article has a constitutional status, but not merely a statutory status. However, by virtue of Article 243G, the legislature of a State was empowered to pass the law to endow the panchayat with such powers and authority if necessary to function as an institution of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats for the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice, for the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice etc., in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. That is a clear indication of the special powers given for a Panchayat to be a self-government under the Constitution. Article 243H has empowered the State to make any law to authorise the Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fee in accordance with such procedure etc., to make it a self-government and to be more independently economic. Among such powers, a Gram Panchayat under Article 243G has invested the powers to the Panchayat to have markets and fairs. There is an indication of the constitutional powers vested in the GramPanchayat to have markets and fairs as part of self-government. Mr. Venkateswarlu, learned advocate for Respondent No.2 has relied upon a recent pronouncement of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Kota v. A.P.S.R.T.C., Nellore and others, 1997 (4) ALD 560 in support of his contention that Article 243G of the Constitution does not confer upon the Gram Panchayat an exclusive power to provide for or to carry out the activities, and that it was not intended to impose curb on trade by individuals or even institutions in that village. It is true that the precedent while dealing with such a question has laid down the law as follows:
'Reading Article 243G alongwith Eleventh Schedule, no conclusion could be drawn that the power was conferred upon the Gram Panchayat in an exclusive manner to provide for or carry out the aforesaid activities. No infirmity can also be inferred to be arising from the said provisions on the statutory body like the Road Transport Corporation to restrain from making any arrangements or providing any facilities for similar activities to be carried on in the village. The idea behind the entire provision is to lay wide open the field for the Gram Panchayat to carry on various activities for the purpose as stated therein. This provision of the Constitution is clearly not intended to impose any curb or restriction on trade and business to be carried out by individuals or even institutions in that village. This submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is also found to be devoid of any substance.'
The background in which such a legal expression was made by the Court was in the light of the controversy that A.P.S.R.T.C. can have a shop or market within its building or bus-stand etc. While referring the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 it was pointed out that the Corporation was vested with the power to sell or otherwise transfer any property. Moreover, the question whether the Corporation itself was trading white having the shops as such was also dealt with. Reference to Section 46 of the Gram Panchayat Act was also made, and it washeld that it was an enabling provision for carrying out the requirements of the village in respect of matters viz.. Clauses (i) to (xxvii) of the provision for development and promotion of fairs in the Panchayat area etc., and not as a restrictive clause at all. In that light, it was laid down that in the nature of the enabling provision as such, the Panchayat could make provisions for any one or more activities as laid down in Clauses (i) to (xxvii), and there was no infirmity produced on the Corporation to provide for any facility in the bus stand which could leave open the stall holders to carry on any such work. In no manner, this decision comes to the assistance of the contention of the learned advocate for the Respondent No. 1. The above questions of this case never arose on decided in the precedent. The learned Government Pleader raises the same contention as that of the Respondent No.2, which this Court is not able to appreciate or accept under the circumstances.
14. Now the primary question is whether the Gram Panchayat has got powers under the Act to establish, control and regulate a market within its area. Section 46 as an enabling provision empowers the Gram Panchayat to provide for, control of fairs, jatras and festivals. The general powers and functions of the Panchayat by virtue of Section 45 are enumerated in Schedule I of the Act, and at item No.22, markets and fairs are one of the such items within the general powers of the Gram Panchayat. Section 104(1) empowers the Gram Panchayat to provide places for use as public markets and, with the sanction of the Commissioner, close any such market or part thereof (The permission of the Commissioner is needed only to close the market and not to establish a market). Section 104(2)(d) empowers the Gram Panchayat to collect fee on animals brought for sale into or sold in such markets. The executive authority of the Gram Panchayat has got executive authority in respect of public markets as laid down in Section 107 as follows:
'Powers exercisable by executive authority in respect of public markets -The executive authority may expel from any public market any person who or whose servant has been convicted of disobeying any Bye-laws for the time being in force in such market, and may prevent such persons from further carrying on by himself or his servants or agents, any trade or business in such market, or occupying any shop, stall or other place therein and may determine any lease or tenure which such person may possess in any shop, stall or place.'
The Government can classify the markets as public or private markets situated in a village as Mandal Parishad Markets, Gram Panchayat Markets etc. by virtue of Section 112 of the Act. The Gram Panchayat has got control over private markets also in relation to collection of fee and licence fee by virtue of Sections 105 and 108 of the Panchayat Raj Act. These provisions read together in addition to Chapter IX of the Constitution of India and Schedule XI Item No.22, in categorical and unmistakable terms makes the Gram Panchayat a self-government having power to establish markets, control them and regulate them, including the power to impose fine on any sale or exposure of public or private animal or article without permission, and the fine prescribed is Rs. 107-for such a violation under item 110 of Schedule IV, which is part of Section 207 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Thus, a Panchayat, as a self-government is a sovereign body not only to regulate, but also to punish in case of violation. Mr. Venkateswarlu, the learned advocate has strongly relied upon Section 130 of the Panchayat Raj Act to draw support to his contention that all such powers (stated supra) and the constitutional implication is subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Markets Act in view of the exempt given to Market Committee from paying any licence fee to the Gram Panchayat. Simplicitor Section 130 reads as follows:
'Government and Market Committee not to obtain licences and permission : Nothing in this Act or in any rule, Bye-law or regulation made thereunder shall beconstrued as requiring the taking out of any licence or the obtaining of any permission under this Act or any such rule, Bye-law or regulation in respect of any place in the occupation or under the control of the State or Central Government or of a Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad or of a Market Committee constituted under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (16 of 1966) or in respect of any property of the Sate or of any property belonging to such Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad or Market Committee.'
A simple meaning of the provision is that nothing in the Act, Rule, Bye-law or regulation with reference to the Act. empowers the Gram Panchayat to collect any licence fee or impose condition for permission in respect of any place in the occupation or under the control of State or Central Government or of a Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad or of a Market Committee constituted under the Agricultural Markets Act. The reasons could be that there may be properties or places under the occupation or control of not only the Market Committee, but also the State Government, Central Government, Mandal Parishad, Zilla Parishad etc., regarding which no permission is necessary to be obtained from the Gram Panchayat. Presuming that a Market Committee or any such authority is permitted by law or otherwise within the Gram Panchayat area, and by virtue of that any property or any place or the area is in the occupation or control of such authorities, the Gram Panchayat cannot impose the condition to obtain permission or to obtain licence. Beyond that, the provision does not speak anything. This Court is not able to find out any indication from this provision that it excludes the Gram Panchayat from any control over such area or the place in the occupation of such authorities in the Market Committee for the purpose of its powers under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act.
15. The provisions under the Panchayat Raj Act totally speak in tune with the intendment of the Constitution that a GramPanchayat should be a self-government. That is how so many powers are conferred not only to regulate but also to impose and expect obedience by inflicting penalty. In other words, it has got the tinge and the fibre of a sovereign status. That is how the law relating to Gram Panchayat etc.. has been styled as 'The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994', and in fact it is a Panchayat Raj, and not a Panchayat area. It has got the implication of a territorial sovereign power for exercising to achieve the real purpose behind the enactment enumerated in the objects and reasons. Thus, undoubtedly it is a self-government. Neither in Chapter IX of the Constitution nor in the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act it is found that a Gram Panchayat is a local government. Local Government is not defined either in the Agricultural Markets Act or in the Panchayat Raj Act, but Municipality is defined under Section 2(viii) of the Agricultural Markets Act to mean that municipality is governed by the law relating to municipalities for the time being in force in the State and it includes the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Advisedly, the Panchayat Raj Act is made not applicable to the areas governed by municipalities etc., which is categoric under Section 1(2), white extending to the whole State of Andhra Pradesh, except such areas mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e). Therefore, the Gram Panchayat area is quite independent and distinctive of such areas enumerated under Section l(2)(a) to (e) of the Panchayat Raj Act. It is true that Agricultural Markets Act extends to the whole of Andhra Pradesh, however, subject to the areas covered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. If we read the two enactments and provisions together as above, the area of the Market Committee is restrictive whereas the area of the Gram Panchayat is beyond for the purposes of various activities, including markets or marketing. It may be possible that in a Gram Panchayat area there may be a market of the Market Committee established under Sections 3 and 4 of the Agricultural Markets Act, however, subject to the control and power of the Gram Panchayat, not only for establishment but also for regulation and control.Mr. Venkateswarlu, also referred to Section 29 of the Agricultural Markets Act which deals with payment of compensation in respect of markets in areas within the jurisdiction of other local authorities to contend that if there is any market within the jurisdiction of the local authority it can be compensated as per the provision to indicate that a market committee can have its markets in the Gram Panchayat area and compensate it according to the provisions. This Court is not convinced with such an import in the Section and the rule meaning. It is difficult to understand the contention that Gram Panchayat in the sense to be understood under the Panchayat Raj Act is a local government, and on the other hand, constitutionally it is called Self-Government. In fact, 'Local Authority' is denned under Section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, to mean that a Municipal Committee, District Board, body of Port Commissioner or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund. No such import can be brought with reference to the Gram Panchayat within the meaning of the constitution and the Panchayat Raj Act. The learned advocate has relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, in support of his contention that village Panchayat, which is a statutory body is local authority, and therefore, State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India A careful reading of the decision shows that such expression was made in the light of the background in which the question was considered whether the provisions East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) (Second Amendment Validation) Act, 1960 was to be considered to make a village panchayat a local authority, a statutory body for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. Neither there is any pari materia with any provision therein nor a relation with the provisions of Chapter IX of the Constitution and also the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. It cannot be forgotten that every law, statute, etc., has to be understood within its own meaning, unless ithas a pari materia bearing with similar meaning in any other Act brought about for similar purposes and circumstances. This Court in not able to accept such a contention to draw support from the pronouncement in Kishan Singh's case (supra). The expression 'self-government' although incorporated under Article 243(d) of the Constitution, is not defined in any of the enactments in question. Therefore it becomes a political expression, understood in administrative law to be a government which can rule itself and it is beyond the meaning of autonomy.
16. The expression 'self government' from the latin gubernaculum means 'The system of polity in a State; that form of fundamental rules and principles by which a nation or state is governed, or by which individual members of a body politic are to regulate their social actions. A constitution either written or unwritten, by which the rights and duties of citizens and public officers are prescribed and defined, as a monarchical government, a republican government, etc. The sovereign or supreme power in a state expresses its will and exercises its functions; or the framework of political institutions, departments, and offices, by means of which the executive, legislature and administrative business of the State is carried on' (Under the word 'Government' at Page 695 of Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition, 1990), The expression 'self-government' understood in that context is a sovereign government to rule by itself Self-Government as a noun means control of one's own (political) affairs, and self-government as an adjective means having control over oneself, specifically having self-government (Page 842, Penguins English Dictionary). 'Self-government' means 'self-rule, self-determination, home rule, heteronomy, dominion rule, colonial government, colonialism, neo colonialism, provisional government, coalition government'' (Item 612, Page 475 of the Original Roget's, Roget's International Thesaurus, fifth edition). The Supreme Court in Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji v. State of Bombay, : [1964]3SCR686 was considering the meaning of the expression 'local authority', and it held that aState Transport Corporation was not a local authority although it could acquire the land by virtue of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Reliance was taken from Section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, for the purpose of knowing the meaning of the expression 'local authority'. Therefore, the meaning of local authority is restricted and exclusive of the meaning of self-government- A local authority and local self-government are different in form, intent and the governments. A local authority like the municipality or as in the present case Agricultural Market Committee will be statutory authorities, whereas a Gram Panchayat as in the present case by virtue of Article 243(d) would be a self-government or may be a local self-government, but not a local authority. In that view of the matter, to put it in substance, a Gram Panchayat as a self-government is a sovereign body having both constitutional and statutory status, to not only govern itself but to govern its subjects within its territory. The meaning of Panchayat Raj is akin to a territorial kingdom, however within the democratic intent and subject to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and the Constitution. Therefore, it is difficult to think that a market committee constituted under the Agricultural Markets Act has any jurisdiction over the Gram Panchayat or for the purposes of having the markets as in the present case.
17. Mr. Venkateswarlu, has not left the matter at this stage. He has made great efforts to demonstrate that Agricultural Markets Act is a special law, and Panchayat Raj Act is a general law, and by virtue of the doctrine of Generalia specialibus non derogant, as laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sambasiva Rao v. Osmania University, : 1997(1)ALT629 (FB) the Agricultural Markets Act prevails over the Panchayat Raj Act. The Full Bench in M. Sambasiva Rao's case (supra) while dealing with such a concept has clearly laid down that while applying the doctrine of prevailing of a special law over a general law, the subject-matter has to be examined, and it was held that AICTE being a special law in a particular category would overrulethe UGC Act, being the general law. Mr. Venkateswarlu draws support from such an expression that marketing being a special subject, having a special law under the Agricultural Market Committee, and particularly in view of Section 30 with overriding effect should be taken to prevail over the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. This Court is not able to find out such a distinction between the two laws in relation to the one being special over the other. Both the enactments deal with the same question of marketing within a particular area, declared to be the area under Section 4 to have the markets within it by the Marketing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Agricultural Markets Act. When two authorities have got similar powers to have the market within a particular area, the question is not whether which is the special authority or the special law, under which it is functioning. When the Gram Panchayat has got powers to have and regulate its own markets of its own, auto-government or the self-government, there cannot be any special law to take away such a power as a special subject unless provided or saved under the latter Act. In M. Sambasiva Rao's case (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held that when there are two enactments dealing with the same subject-matter, the latter law prevails. Even on that count, it is the Panchayat Raj Act which prevails over the Agricultural Markets Act in relation to the subject-matter of markets. Therein it is indicated like judicial notice, the Legislature takes notice of the existing law while making a subsequent law, and when an alternative authority is contemplated and vested with certain powers, it must be presumed that the Legislature has taken legislative notice of the existing law in relation to the same subject-matter, and when it projects the same subject-matter in the latter Act, it should be taken to have determined to vest with the latter authority with the same power thereby depriving the earlier authority of such a power, otherwise there would be scope for conflict of power and conflict of authorities.
18. With all the skirmishes and confabulations of so many matters involvedin the simple question in the present case, it is very very clear that to hold the markets or cattle markets or weekly bazar like shandy for sale and purchase of cattle it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of Petitioner No. 1 and not that of Respondent No.2. The Petitioner No.1 has rightly entrusted the marketing of the weekly shandy in favour of Petitioner No.2. It is not a case to decide whether entrustment of marketing by weekly bazar or shandy to Petitioner No.2 is legal or justified. The impugned proceedings is concerned only with the jurisdiction and powers of the Gram Panchayat to have such markets within its limits in the face of the Marketing Committee having come into existence in that area. Although there are some notifications as above, including the village in question within the area of the Marketing Committee under Section 3 of the Agricultural Markets Act, there is nothing to indicate that any such notification has come into existence subsequent to the Panchayat Raj Act coming into force, even assuming that such markets could be constituted within the panchayat area.
19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of Respondent No.2 is quashed. No costs.