IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.1499 OF 2016 C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.1497 OF 2016 C/W 1498 OF 2016 (APMC) W.P.NO.1499/2016 BETWEEN:
M/S ANU TRADERS VIDYANAGARA, HARIHARA - 577 601 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR P.MAHESHWARAPPA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO. 16, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3) - - -
Writ Petition No.1499/2016 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to strike down Rule 10(i) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of property in market yards) Rules 2004 as irrational, arbitrary and opposed to the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1996 and etc., W.P.NO.1497/2016 BETWEEN:
SREE GURU KOTTURESHWARA TRADERS SHOBHA TALKIES ROAD, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 601 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR P.S.CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, S/O SHIVAPUTHRAPPA, AGE 37 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO. 16, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3) - - -
Writ Petition No.1497/2016 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to strike down Rule 10(i) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of property in market yards) Rules 2004 as irrational, arbitrary and opposed to the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1996 and etc., W.P.NO.1498/2016 BETWEEN:
SREE GURU KOTTURESHWARA TRADERS HOLESIRIGERE – 577 516 HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.G.KOTRESH S/O CHANDRAPPAGOUDAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO. 16, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3) - - -
Writ Petition No.1498/2016 is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to strike down Rule 10(i) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of property in market yards) Rules 2004 as irrational, arbitrary and opposed to the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1996 and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER All the 3 matters are clubbed together and taken up for disposal in the presence of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.3 – APMC and also learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Brief facts leading to these 3 petitions are as under:
The petitioners in these petitions namely M/s.Anu Traders in W.P.No.1499/2016 and Sree Guru Kottureshwara Traders in W.P.Nos.1497/2016 and 1498/2016 had applied and secured allotment of site bearing Sy.Nos.22, 32 and 9 in the market yard of Harihara Town, Davanagere District. The allotment which was made in their favour is vide order No.KruMaE/189/Development-1/2011 dated 23.9.2011 vide Annexure-A. Pursuant to that, they were also called upon to pay the entire allotment value on or before 21.12.2011. It is seen that the petitioners herein have not paid the amount in accordance with the communication sent to them resulting in cancellation of allotment in their favour by order dated 24.6.2013.
3. The order of cancellation in respect of the petitioners was subject matter of appeal before the 2nd respondent – Director of Agricultural Marketing in Appeal Nos.11, 12 and 13/2014-15 which came to be dismissed by order dated 28.7.2015 which is produced at Annexure-L in the writ petitions. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the same, have come up in these writ petitions impugning the said order on the ground that sufficient opportunity was not provided to them to comply with the direction for payment of the allotment money and to take possession of the property.
4. It is seen that when the aforesaid matters had come up before this Court on 25.1.2016, an interim order was granted permitting them to deposit the balance value of the site along with 12% interest p.a. from the date it was required to be deposited till the date of deposit. It is stated they have complied.
5. In the meanwhile, they have also brought to the notice of this Court that under similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of W.P.No.50411/2014 by its order dated 21.1.2016, has directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the said proceedings to consider their prayer for setting aside the order of cancellation and restoring the allotment in their favour after receiving the balance allotment money along with interest at 12% p.a.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court would observe that all the 3 writ petitions filed by M/s.Anu Traders and Sree Guru Kottureshwara Traders are disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to regularize the allotment which was made in their favour after setting aside the order of cancellation passed on 24.6.2013 which was in cancelling the allotment of said sites in the name of each of them and thereafter put them in possession of the property by receiving the amount with interest as stated supra.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV