ORDER:
In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners are DWACRA Groups/Physical Handicapped persons who are allottees of stalls in various Rythu Bazars located in and around Visakhapatnam. They filed these Writ Petitions aggrieved by the notice (show cause) for vacation of stalls dated 01.09.2021 issued by the 3rdrespondent - Joint Director of Agricultural Market Committee, Visakhapatnam District and subsequent vacation of the petitioners from the stalls and issuing notification dated 18.10.2021 by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam calling for fresh applications for allotment of vacant stalls in the Rythu Bazars as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 30.4.2015. As the facts and issues raised in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioners are DWACRA Groups/Physically Handicapped persons who were allotted stalls in Rythu Bazars situated in and around Visakhapatnam during the period 2003-04 on payment of monthly rental basis. Even though the allotment of stalls is initially for a period of three years, they were allowed to continue in the stalls on payment of monthly rent varying from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. They were allowed to continue in the stalls even after expiry of the period of allotment/lease period of three years on payment of monthly rental to the respondents. But, the 3rdrespondent issued the impugned notice
2
2 MGR, J
W.P.No.24695 of 2021 & Batch styled as show cause notice on 01.09.2021 asking the petitioners/allottees of stalls in Narasimha Nagar and other subject Rythu Bazars to vacate the stalls within a period of seven days, without considering their representation for extension of lease period for their continuation and issued notification on 18.10.2021 calling for fresh applications for allotment of the stalls as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012. The action of the respondent is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and depriving the livelihood of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed.
3. The 4threspondent filed counter briefly stating that the petitioners were allotted shops under the category of Self Help Groups and Physically Handicapped persons to sell vegetables for a period of three years from the date of allotment of the stalls in the Rythu Bazars as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 21.1.2004. The said guidelines were issued as per the Division Bench judgment of common High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No.512 of 2003 dated 12.09.2003. The petitioners were entitled to continue in the stalls for a period of three years on payment of monthly rentals to the 5threspondent - Estate Officer of Agricultural Marketing Department, Rythu Bazar, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam and various other Rythu Bazars. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012 providing comprehensive guidelines with regard to allotment of shops in the Rythu Bazars. As per the guidelines, the petitioners are not entitled for any extension or renewal of the allotment/lease beyond three years period. The guidelines provides that after expiry of the period of allotment, the allotment shall be cancelled and new allotment should be made as per the guidelines for giving chance to the new Ryths and
3
3 MGR, J
W.P.No.24695 of 2021 & Batch DWACRA Groups and Physically Handicapped persons. Hence, the petitioners overstayed in the stalls even after expiry of the lease period of three years. They are continuing in the stalls for nearly 14 to 17 years after expiry of the lease period on payment of monthly rentals. That does not mean that their lease period was extended. One Sri P. Sampathgiri Prasad approached the Lok Ayukta complaining the action of the respondent authorities in continuing the allottees beyond three years period in deviation of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012. The Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur in Memo dated 03.04.2021 instructed all the Estate Officers of Rythu Bazars and Assistant Directors of Marketing to take appropriate steps to vacate the persons who are running stalls/shops in Rythu Bazars allotted by virtue of the Government Orders. Accordingly, notice dated 7.4.2021 was issued to the allottees stating that they were allotted the stalls in the year 2004 and beyond three years they are continuing and asked to vacate the shops otherwise, they will take appropriate action for vacation of the stalls. Thereafter, on 1.9.2021 the impugned show cause notices were issued asking the petitioners/allottees to vacate the shops within seven days. On 4.10.2021, some of the petitioners DWACRA/Physically Handicapped persons and allottees of shops have vacated their shops and thereafter the impugned notification was issued on 18.10.2021 calling for fresh applications from the DWACRA Groups, Physically Handicapped persons for allotment of 134 stalls, 95 shops are earmarked for DWACRA Groups and 36 stalls for Physically Handicapped persons and 3 shops for Rice Stalls, duly fixing the time from 21.10.2021 to 28.10.2021 till 5.00 PM for receiving the applications and in pursuance of the same, some fresh applicants
4
4 MGR, J
W.P.No.24695 of 2021 & Batch have been allotted the vacant shops. The petitioners approached this Court by filing all these Writ Petitions and this Court granted interim orders on 26.10.2021 and various other dates, while suspending the notification dated 18.10.2021 directed the respondents to continue the petitioners in the stalls without any hindrance. Even though the petitioners have submitted representations for extension or renewal of their allotments, the same could be done since as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012, the petitioners are not entitled for any renewal/extension of lease period, after completion of three years period and they have to vacate the shops to enable the Government to allot the stalls to new persons to sell the vegetables in the Rythu Bazar.
4. Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the cases and leading the batch would contend that the petitioners are DWACRA Groups and Physical Handicapped persons. On being found qualified and eligible, they were allotted shops in the year 2004 for a period of three years. Even after three years period, the petitioners were allowed to continue for all these years on payment of monthly rentals and the impugned notices were issued asking them to vacate the shops and calling for fresh applications without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and without cancelling their allotment, arbitrarily and contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 30.4.2015, without considering their representations for renewal and giving sufficient time for vacating the shops in highhanded manner illegally and arbitrarily.
5
5 MGR, J
W.P.No.24695 of 2021 & Batch
5. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture vehemently contended that the petitioners' were allotted stalls for vending vegetables originally for a period of three years and the same was expired long back and as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012, the petitioners are not entitled for any renewal or extension of the lease period. As per G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 21.1.2004, there is no provision for extension or renewal of the lease beyond three years and after expiry of the lease period of the existing allottees of the stalls, new Ryths, DWACRA Groups and Physically Handicapped persons would be given opportunity to make applications for allotment of stalls in the Rythu BAzars to eakout their livelihood and denied the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are unsustainable in the light of the guidelines issued by the Government.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission of the counsel and perusal of the record, this Court found that the Rythu Bazars were introduced in the year around 2000 to remove the middlemen in selling the vegetables and to enable the Ryths to sell their produce directly to consumers and the consumers would get vegetables for lesser price and thereby both the Ryths as well as the consumers will be benefited. Rythu Bazars were established in different locations of the towns and cities. Thereafter, the Government created various authorities for managing the Rythu Bazars. Thereafter, rules were framed and as per guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 21.1.2004 and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 30.4.2015, the Joint Collector is the competent authority to make allotments of stalls on application in Rythu Bazars to DWACRA Groups and Physically Handicapped persons for a period of three years. Out of total number of shops in
6
6 MGR, J
W.P.No.24695 of 2021 & Batch the Rythu Bazars, 3% of the shops are allotted to Physically Handicapped persons belonging to farming community and 20% of the shops not beyond 40% are allotted to DWACRA Groups from the farmers who sell non-growing vegetables in the area in Rythu Bazars. The rentals will be fixed periodically by the Joint Collector and they will be issued identity cards to conduct business in Rythu Bazars. But as per the guidelines, after expiry of the lease period, the stalls shall be vacated on due cancellation of the allotments and fresh allotments shall be made. The contention of Sri Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondent authorities highhandedly without giving any opportunity to the petitioners against the principles of natural justice issued the impugned eviction notice, without considering their representations for extension/renewal of the lease period could not be countenanced. As per the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 30.4.2015, there is no provision for extension or renewal of the lease period. There is force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture that after expiry of the lease period of three years, allottees of the stalls in the Rythu Bazar shall vacate the stalls and make room for fresh allotment to the other needy DWACRA Groups and Physically Handicapped persons as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012. However, fair procedure requires cancellation of the allotments and consideration of explanation for the show cause notice, followed by eviction process. In these cases, the petitioners continued even after expiry of three years period and for longer periods, even though on payment of monthly rentals. The petitioners' continuation in the stalls beyond lease period is illegal. The eviction process was initiated on a complaint made before the Lok Ayukta.
7
7 MGR, J
W.P.No.24695 of 2021 & Batch The rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 16.2.2012 does not permit the allottees to continue beyond the period of three years. Accordingly, in pursuance of the orders of the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Marketing, notices were issued seeking eviction of the stalls and some of the stalls were evicted even though without cancellation of the original allotment granted during the period 2004-2005. Since the petitioners have been continuing for the last 17 years contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.29 due to laxity on the part of the respondent authorities depriving the allotment to new Ryths, DWACRA Groups and Physically Handicapped persons who are in need of allotment of the shops in the Rythu Bazars to eakout their livelihood, in the interest of justice, this Court felt it appropriate that no prejudice would be caused to grant six (6) weeks time to the petitioners to vacate their shops and make available the vacant shops/stalls to the petitioners for allotment of stalls to the fresh applicants/needy persons as per the guidelines issued in Government Orders. Accordingly, the Petitioners are directed to vacate the shops within six weeks, if not already vacated.
7. In view of the above discussion, this Court found that there are no merits in the Writ Petitions and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________
M. GANGA RAO, J
Date: .05.2022
CSR
8
8 MGR, J
W.P.No.24695 of 2021 & Batch HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.24695, 24099, 24100, 24101, 24104, 24105,
24106, 24259, 24260, 24261, 24262, 24415, 24416, 24418,
24419, 24420, 24421, 24422, 24423, 24424, 24425, 24427,
24428, 24429, 24430, 24431, 24432, 24433, 24434, 24435,
24436, 24437, 24438, 24439, 24440, 24441, 24442, 24443,
24697, 24829, 24844 OF 2021
DATE: -05-2022
CSR
9