http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2426-2428 of 2000

PETITIONER: Fruit Commission Agents Association & Ors

RESPONDENT: Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/09/2007

BENCH: A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2426-2428 OF 2000

1.      Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2.      These appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution have been  filed against the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court dated 17.2.1997 in W.P. No.2820 of 1992 which has followed  the decision of the High Court dated 17.2.1997 in W.P. No.2806 of  1992.

3.      We have carefully perused the decision of the High Court in  W.P. No.2806 of 1992 and find no infirmity therein.

4.      The facts of the case are that the wholesale business in fruits  was located at Jambagh area in Hyderabad city.  Because of its  location on either side of the 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 of spacious land at Gaddiannaram on the outskirts of  Hyderabad city at a cost of Rs.3.5 crores in 1985 for shifting of the  wholesale market there.  It is alleged by the respondents that the  type-design and proposed construction of shop-cum-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 of shops, and the sub-committee invited  the representatives of the Fruit Commission Agents, and after  consultation with them the shop-cum-godowns were allotted on  lease for eleven months based on the quantum of business turnover  of each individual subject to payment of monthly rent as fixed by  the Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad.          6.      On allotment of shop-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  of each 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

constructions and are not permanent in nature, but this has been  denied 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 impugned judgment of the 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 of the Executive  Engineer of the Market Committee.

9.      The respondents have alleged that they have spent Rs.3.50  crores for purchase of the land, and have provided various  amenities and facilities to the traders e.g. bank building, ryot rest  house, open auction platforms, laying of cement roads in the  market yard incurring expenditure of Rs.3 crores etc. apart from  spending Rs.2 lacs every month for upkeep of the market yard.   Water and electric supply, drainage and sanitation arrangements  have also been made there.

10.     It may be mentioned that the appellant Fruit Commission  Agents Association had also filed W.P. No.10026 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  certain 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 a 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 of  the fruits have been built in the market yard at a cost of Rs.62 lacs.   Apart from that, one electronic weigh bride 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.1.75 lac is spent every month for garbage disposal.

12.     It is alleged that if pucca shops have to be built by the Market  Committee it will entail further expenditure of Rs.3.70 crores for  only 51 shops-cum-godowns.

13.     On the facts and circumstances of this 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.

14.     Fixation of rent is an administrative function and the court  cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over administration decisions vide

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Tata Cellular  vs.  Union of India 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.  vs.  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 of the State should not encroach into the domain of another.   Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers (XIth Chapter of his  book ‘The Spirit of Laws’) 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 of the appellant expeditiously. No costs.