IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.7061/2019 (APMC) Between:
M/s. Dhanush Trading Co., No.15/2, 2nd Main Road, A.P.M.C. Yard, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru- 560 022.
Duly represented by its Proprietrix, Smt. Sharadha Basavaraju, D/o Late Shanumkappa, Basavaneppa Radder, Aged about 45 years, Bengaluru. … Petitioner (By Sri B.C. Mallikarjuna, Advocate) And:
1. The Director of Agricultural Marketing, Office of the Agricultural Marketing, Bengaluru Division, No.16, 2nd Rajbhavan Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, R.P.M.C. Yard, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022, Duly represented by its Secretary.
3. The Administrator, Chairman, The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, R.M.C. Yard, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru – 560 022. … Respondents (By Smt. B.P.Radha, AGA for R-1;
Sri T. Swaroop, Advocate for R-2 & R-3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-B endorsement dated 14.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 permanently and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner, who had obtained a shop on lease at APMC Yard, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru had sought for renewal of its licence. The second respondent– Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) had called upon the petitioner to furnish a copy of the lease agreement with the landlord in order to process the application for renewal, a notice came to be issued as per Annexure-C dated 21.04.2018 and it was informed that unless such lease agreement was furnished, the question of renewal could not be considered.
2. The petitioner, in response to the said notice had submitted an explanation in terms of Annexure-D dated 20.08.2018 and stated that as there were legal proceedings between the petitioner and landlord, there were some difficulties in complying with the condition relating to furnishing of lease agreement.
3. Sri T.Swaroop, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent–APMC, upon instructions, states that the other requirements relating to renewal of licence have been complied with, but however, according to the procedure, furnishing of a copy of the lease agreement is required to be adhered to.
4. Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that when an eviction petition in S.C.No.298/2017 between the landlord and the petitioner is pending in the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, to insist upon the production of lease agreement when landlord is not cooperating would amount to calling upon the petitioner to do the act, which under the present circumstances cannot be complied with.
5. Taking note of the legal proceedings pending between the petitioner and the landlord, the second respondent Committee is to decide the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner without insisting for furnishing of the lease agreement. However, the petitioner to furnish a copy of the petition and order sheet of the proceedings said to have been pending in the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
6. The second respondent Committee to take action within a period not later than six weeks from the date the petitioner submits to it a copy of the plaint in S.C.No.298/2017 alongwith the order sheet of the proceedings.
Subject to the above, this petition is disposed of.
VGR Sd/- JUDGE