IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.262-263 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. KANAKA MODERN RICE MILL NANJANGUD ROAD, T. NARASIPURA -571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT BY ITS PARTNER SRI B.N. SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. KANAKA RICE INDUSTRIES NANJANGUD ROAD, T.NARASIPURA -571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT BY ITS PARTNER:
SRI B.N.SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ T., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 .
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.1 RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, APMC YARD CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 313.
5. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE APMC YARD , KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 440.
6. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE APMC YARD, NANJANGUD MYSORE DISTRICT-571 301.
7. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE APMC YARD, MANDYA-571 401.
8. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE APMC YARD, MADDUR MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428.
9. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE APMC YARD, PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434.
10. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, APMC YARD, MALAVALLI MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3 SRI R.B. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADV. FOR R4 TO R10) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO ISSUE FOUR YEARS MARKET FEE EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE AS PER THE NEW INDUSTRIAL POLICY VIDE ANNX-B DT.28.2.2009 AND ALSO AS PER THE AMENDED APMC ACT, 2011.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Basavarj T., learned counsel for petitioners. Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri R.B. Satyanarayana Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 10.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, the matters are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to issue Market Fee Exemption Certificate for a period of four years as per the New Industrial Policy dated 28.02.2009 as amended vide the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) (Amendment) Act, 2011.
4. When the matters were taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already submitted the relevant documents for issuance of Market Fee Exemption Certificate. Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 04.02.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.28517-28518/2012, the respondent No.3 had issued notice on 07.12.2015 to the petitioners to submit the relevant documents. Thereupon, the petitioners have submitted the documents on 23.12.2015. However, after verification of the same, it was found that there is some discrepancy in the APMC Exemption Certificate issued by the District Industrial Centre, Mysore and thereupon, clarification was sought in this regard by the petitioners on 16.01.2016. However, the District Industrial Centre has not responded to the same. It is further submitted that decision in this regard shall be taken by the competent authority within a period of four weeks.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision with regard to eligibility to claim exemption certificate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today by a speaking order. Till then, ad-interim order granted by this Court shall continue.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST