IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.1334 OF 2016 (APMC) BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, MYSURU-570 024.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S SRIDEVI INDUSTRIES NO.P-15, KSSIDC INDUSTRIAL AREA, HEBBAL, MYSURU-570 024 PROPRIETOR: V. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING NO.16, 11TH RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B R SATHENAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 26446 OF 2015 DATED 04.02.2016 THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.26446 of 2015, the respondents have filed this writ appeal.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioner was a successful bidder in the auction conducted by the market committee in respect of Plot No.A-265, Market Yard, Bandipalya, Mysuru. Out of the bid amount of Rs.72,05,000/-, petitioner had deposited 25% of the amount and since there was a delay in paying the balance amount, respondents issued a notice dated 10.04.2015 intimating the petitioner that the amount paid by him would be forfeited and the auction proceedings would be cancelled. Petitioner made representation seeking some accommodation to pay the balance amount, but the same did not receive consideration and hence the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.26446 of 2015.
After hearing both sides, learned Single Judge disposed off the writ petition directing the respondents not to enforce the notice dated 10.04.2015, if the petitioner deposits the balance amount along with interest at 12% per annum within two weeks from the date of receipt of that order.
Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, the respondents are in appeal before this court.
4. Heard arguments of the learned counsels and perused the records.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited substantial amount towards the sital value with A.P.M.C. i.e., respondent No.2. The petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount. In similar circumstance, this court in Writ Petition No.470 of 2008 disposed off on 22.02.2011, directed the APMC, Hubli to execute lease cum sale agreement in favour of the petitioner No.9 therein in respect of the site allotted to him and directed the petitioners to put up construction on the sites in question, in accordance with the sanction which may be issued by respondent No.3.
6. The facts involved in the said case is similar to the facts involved in the present case. The APMC has not challenged the order dated 22.02.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.470/2008 and the same has attained finality. The present case stands on the same footing. Considering the order passed in the said writ petition, we are of the view that learned Single Judge was justified in considering the explanation put forth for the delay. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RD