IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.31326/2017 (APMC) Between:
H.S. Indrakumar, S/o Late Subalarajaih, 40 years, C-28, APMC Yard, Hassan – 573 301. … Petitioner (By Sri B.R. Sathenahalli, Advocate) And:
1. The Director of Agricultural Marketing, No.16, 11th Raj Bhavan Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Secretary, The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hassan – 573 201. … Respondents (By Sri A.R. Sharadamba, Advocate for R-2; Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records and returns from the respondents and quash the communication of the respondent No.2 dated 27.06.2017 vide Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order at Annexure-D dated 27.06.2017 whereby the Secretary of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), i.e. respondent No.2 herein has called upon the petitioner to stop all further construction and to remove the constructed portion in the first floor. The petitioner, however, has contended that there is no construction, which is contrary to the sanctioned plan that has been put up by him.
2. It is noticed that against the order passed at Annexure-A dated 27.06.2017, there is an appeal provided under Section 137A of the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (‘the Act’ for brevity).
3. In light of availability of appeal provision and in light of disputed questions that have been raised in this petition, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the appeal remedy as provided under Section 137A of the Act.
4. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to the appeal remedy as observed above.
5. If the appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of release of this order, the period of filing as prescribed under Section 137A of the Act would be appropriately dealt with and orders would be passed, keeping in mind that proceedings were prosecuted before this Court.
6. In view of disposal of the writ petition, no orders are called for as regards pending interlocutory application.
VGR Sd/- JUDGE