IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.44051 OF 2017 (APMC) Between:
Devadas Shenoy S/o Late S. Mohandas Shenoy Aged about 66 years Residing at Siddapura Village Kundapura Taluk Udupi District – 576 101 ... Petitioner (By Sri. Shrihari K, Advocate) And:
1. The Secretary The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bykampady Mangaluru – 575 001 2. The Secretary The Government of Karnataka Department of Ministry of Agriculture, Vikasa Soudha Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru - 1 … Respondents (By Sri. Y.D. Harsha, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 11.03.2016 issued by the R-1 and for a writ of mandamus seeking direction on the Respondent No.1 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 26.02.2016 filed as Annexure – A and B to the W.P. respectively and etc, This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner herein is said to be son of one Mohandas Shenoy, a trader who was doing business in Siddapura Village, near Kundapura Taluk of Udupi District part of erstwhile D.K. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 19.11.1971, his father S. Mohadas Shenoy is said to have deposited a sum of Rs. 6,000/- with APMC, Baikampady, for the purpose of making application to seek allotment of two sites measuring 4,800 Sq. Ft. each.
2. Though the said amount was paid on 19.11.1971 under receipt No.1663, the records would indicate that the APMC has not taken steps to allot the sites till 26.02.2016. On which day, the petitioner’s mother Smt. Bagirathi Shenoy, has addressed a letter to APMC, Baikampady, about the aforesaid receipt bearing No. 1663, dated 19.11.1971 seeking clarification regarding status of the said deposit under RTI.
2. In pursuance of that, the APMC by its letter dated 11.03.2016 has informed the petitioner’s mother that subsequent to deposit of Rs.6,000/- on 19.11.1971, her husband/petitioner’s father Mohandas Shenoy was required to submit an application in accordance with the rules by depositing 25% of the sital value as advance and submit an application as and when the general public were called upon to submit their application for allotment of sites. It is stated that subsequent to 19.11.1971, when such paper publication was made, it is stated application was not filed by Mohandas Shenoy and that he has also not deposited 25% of the advance amount. Hence, the committee could not allot any site in favour of Mohandas Shenoy pursuant to said deposit. Thereafter this writ petition is filed by the petitioner as son of depositor - Mohandas Shenoy seeking quashing of Annexure-A i.e., reply dated 11.03.2016 and also for a direction to APMC to consider his request for allotment of two sites in APMC Mangalore, pursuant to deposit of Rs.6,000/- made by his father in the year 1971.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents, it is clearly seen that no grounds are made out by the petitioner for issuance of any direction to APMC, Mangalore for allotment of sites pursuant to depositing Rs.6,000/- in the year 1971 or to quash Annexure-A.
4. Infact, Annexure-A i.e., letter dated 11.03.2016 is only a communication by way of reply. That by itself neither create a right to the petitioner seeking allotment of sites nor it can be construed as a denial of allotment of sites pursuant to deposit of Rs.6,000/- on 19.11.1971. As and when the general public were called upon to submit application for allotment of sites, Mohandas Shenoy was required to apply for allotment of sites in terms of the rule prevailing at that time with reference to submitting of an application and depositing 25% margin money subsequent to Rs.6,000/- deposited by him earlier, in the year 1971. Since, Mohandas Shenoy failed to comply the same, he was not entitled for allotment of any site at that relevant point of time. Therefore, the question of considering the same at this juncture does not arise. That too when an endorsement has been issued after a long lapse of time nearly 46 years, issuance of any direction in that behalf cannot be considered.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv