Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION Nos.6187-6189 OF 2015 & 6190-6192 OF 2015 (APMC)
BETWEEN:
SRI T H PRAKASH S/O T P HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A, JYOTHIPURA, TUMKUR – 572 101
SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI.MUDDURAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT, BELLAVI CIRCLE, BHEMASANDRA, TUMKUR – 572 101
SRI N K HAMSA S/O ALVAI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A, NO-12, P R NAGAR, MANDIPET, TUMKUR 572101
SMT. PRABHA W/O LATE T G LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A, P.R. NAGAR, CHIKKAPET, TUMKUR 572101
SMT. VIDYARANI W/O SABHARAYAPPA, D/O. SRI.T S RAMANJANEYA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/A, GARDEN ROAD, CHIKKAPET, TUMKUR 572101
SRI. YOGANAND S/O LATE MARISIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A, BATWADI, BEHIND APMC YARD, DEVARAYAPATANA ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.KASHINATH J D, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 577 001
THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING COMMITTEE REP: BY ITS DIRECTOR, RAJA BHAVANA ROAD, NEAR INCOME TAX OFFICE, BANGALORE – 560 001
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING COMMITTEE, TUMKUR REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, APMC YARD, BATAWADI, TUMKUR 572103
T.R.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.E-9, AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR,
R/O 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BYLAJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, HANUMANTHAPURA, TUMKUR- 572 103
T.H.JAYAMMA W/O T.R.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.-D-30, AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR, R/O 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BYLAJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, HANUMANTHAPURA, TUMKUR- 572 103
T.K.MANJU S/O T.R.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.D-31, AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR, R/O 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BYLAJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD,
HANUMANTHAPURA, TUMKUR- 572 103
T.N.BOJANNA, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.-C-37, AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR,
R/O NEAR TO SHOOLA HANUMANTHARAYA TEMPLE,
GULURU, TUMKUR – 572 103
SINCE DECEASED BY LR R8
VIDE C/O DATE:05.06.2017
SMT.PADMAVATHI W/O T.N.BOJANNA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.C-8, AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR, R/O KANNAPPANA THOTA, NEAR TO OLD HANCHINA FACOTRY, KOTHI THOPU, TUMKUR – 572 103
SMT.LAKKAMMA W/O CHIKKERAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.C-38 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O KANNAPPANA THOTA, NEAR TO OLD HANCHINA FACOTRY, KOTHI THOPU, TUMKUR – 572 103
T.H.JAYARAM S/O HULLURAIAH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.E-17 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O ADJACENT TO SRI RAMA TEMPLE, HANUMANTHA PURA, TUMKUR – 572 103
T.P.SHIVAKUMAR S/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.G-21 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O NEAR TO BYLANJANEYA TEMPLE, TUMKUR – 572 103
T.V.KRISHNAPPA S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.D-42 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O 2ND MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SANDENAHALLI, TUMKUR – 572 103
JAVEED PASHA S/O MAHMMED SHEFI, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.A-04 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O NO.-24, 4TH CROSS, EDGA MOHALLA, TUMKUR – 572 103
NAYAZ AHMED S/O ABDUL MAJID, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.A-6 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O 1ST CROSS, VEERA SAGARA, NAZARABAD, TUMKUR – 572 103
SHAFI ULLA S/O AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.A-09
AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O BALA BEEDI, MANDI PETE, TUMKUR – 572 103.
S.MAHESH S/O C.S.SATHISH, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.H-11 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O NANDINI MILK CORNER, OPPOSITE TO PWD OFFICE, KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 103
MANSOOR AHMED AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.H-04 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O ROYAL AGRO RAITHA KENDRA, BITTANE BEEJA MARATAGARARU KORATAGERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 105
P.MOODALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.H-03 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR, R/O 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, JAYANAGARA WEST, TUMKUR – 572 103
B.MOHAN C/O RANGANNA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, SHOP NO.H5 AT ANTARASANAHALLI MARKET, TUMKUR R/O CS PURA ROAD, GUBBI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 124.
...RESPONDENTS
(By SMT.KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R4 TO R10 & R12 - R16; R8 IS TREATED AS LR OF R7; SRI.THONTADARYA.R.K. ADV. FOR R17 TO R19 (NOC); R10 AND R11 ARE SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINS TO NOTIFICATION DATED 12.12.2012 VIDE ANN-B, AND ALSO RECORDS PERTAINS TO ALLOTMENT OF SHOPS IN THE R-3 MARKET YARD AS PER ANN- G & H DATED 16.3.2013 AND ETC.,.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The case of the petitioners in these petitions is that the second respondent, Director APMC has invited applications for allotment of 252 shops constructed in the new market area on Madhugiri-Tumkur State Highway. It is the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners are eligible for allotment of shops, the respondent-authorities committed an error in not considering the case of the petitioners and considering the case of the respondents No.4 to 19 in contravention of Rules 7 and 8 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of allotment of Property in the Market yards) Rules, 2004 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). Hence, he prays to set aside the allotments made in favour of the private respondents. Prayer is also made to direct the third respondent-Committee to allot the shops to the petitioners.
The learned counsel further submits that while making allotment in favour of respondents No.4 to 19, illegalities have been committed by the third respondent. To substantiate the same he submits that respondents No.4 and 5 are the applicants in whose favour the shops have been allotted and submits that respondents No.4 and 5 are husband and wife. Respondent No.6 is their son. Likewise, respondents No.7 and 8 are also the husband and wife and shops have been allotted in their favour. Hence he submits that the respondents have committed error in allotment in contravention of Rules. During the pendency of this petition respondent No.7 died and respondent No.8 is his legal representative. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules, allotment shall not be made to a licensed market functionary who already owns a site, shop, godown or shop-cum-godown or other building in the market yard either in his name or in the name of the firm in which he is a partner. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that there is illegality in the allotment of shops to the private respondents. In respect of other respondents, the learned counsel submits that the pre- conditions for allotment is that though the applicant should be a
licenced market functionary, but some of the private respondents are not licenced market functionary. Under this circumstance, the allotment made to them is also contrary to law. His further submission is that though the shops were only for marketing fruits, vegetables and flowers, contrary to the same, the third respondent has allotted the shops to wholesale provisions stores, retail provision stores and also to run pesticides shop. The learned counsel has also made alternative prayer by submitting that there are some shops which remain unallotted and if the same is considered for allotment to the petitioners, it would satisfy the case of the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Agriculture Produce Market Committee submits to dismiss these petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that there is no illegality committed as is alleged by the respondent. They are all eligible and satisfy the requirements of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules. Hence, he submits that the petitions are to be dismissed. He further submits that in case if the petitioners are eligible, the respondents have no
objection to make a representation with the third respondent for allotment of unallotted sites/shops to the petitioners. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, what is required to be considered in these petitions is whether there is violation of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules. These grave violations are to be gone into by the second and third respondents who are the competent authority to look into the matter. This court cannot go into each and every case as to whether the allottees are running pesticides shop or a wholesale and retail provisions stores or as to whether the allottees are the licenced market functionaries or not. Under the circumstances, the Court feels it just and proper to direct the Director, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, who is the highest authority to look into the matter, to examine the case of the petitioners on each of the ground taken and urged and to pass appropriate orders. While passing any such orders, it is expected of that the Director would go into the matter with regard to the fact that whether the allottees are licenced market
functionaries or not; whether the shops have been allotted to run wholesale/retail provisions shop, to run pesticide shops, etc; and secondly whether the shops have been allotted to persons of single family, etc and other grounds. This consideration has to made strictly as per the provisions of Rules of allotment, more particularly under Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules. In case, if the authority comes to a conclusion to cancel the shops allotted if it is made contrary to Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, or if the shops are allotted to the persons of the same family, then proper notices need to be issued before cancellation. 6. At this Juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the consideration shall be in respect of petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 to 6 and he would not press for petitioner No.3. The said submission is taken on record. In order to facilitate the second respondent to consider and pass fresh orders, the petitioners are permitted to make available all the materials. Acknowledging the same, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the alternative prayer made by the petitioners for
allotment of sites/shops, if any are remaining vacant, shall also be considered by the second respondent while passing the order. The said exercise shall be completed within an outer limit of three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. With these observations, petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE
lnn