IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.46769 OF 2017 (APMC) Between:
N. Anand S/o B. Nagaiah Aged 50 years No.226/227, 8th Main Sreenivasanagara BSK 1st Stage Bengaluru-56050. ... Petitioner (By Sri. N. K. Ramesh, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Government Department of Marketing (APMC) Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-560001 2. Director Department of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Government of Karnataka No.16, 2nd Raj Bhavan Road P.B. No.5309, Bengaluru – 560001 3. Fruit & Vegetable Special Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bengaluru, Tankbund Road Binnipet Bengaluru – 560 023 Rep. by its Secretary 4. M/s. Tanveer Ahmed and Company C/o. A-31, APMC Sub Market Yard Bengaluru – 560099 Rep. by Tanveer Ahmed. ... Respondents (By Smt. P. B. Radha, AGA for R1 & R2; Sri. T. Swaroop, Adv. for R3;
Sri. Vinayaka B, Adv. for R4) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-3 to consider the representations Annex-F & G Dtd. 04.10.2017 & 20.10.2017 respectively and take a decision to allot an alternate shop in Block-E and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner was allotted a shop No. F-63 in Singena Agrahara Sub-Market Yard by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the year 2008. In the year 2013, the petitioner sought to surrender the shop allotted to him in ‘F’ Block, seeking for allotment of an alternative shop in ‘I’ Block. The petitioner states that he was called upon to surrender the existing shop in lieu of an allotment of an alternative shop in ‘I’ Block as per the communication dated 09.07.2013. Pursuant to which, the petitioner by letter dated 19.07.2013 has sought for an allotment of alternative shop in ‘I’ Block by surrendering the shop No.F-63. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in order to consider his representations at Annexures – F and G.
2. During the course of proceedings before this Court, respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit on 25.09.2018. As per the affidavit, it is stated that the Executive Engineer had fixed the rate of shop No.44 in ‘I’ Block at Rs.34,20,000/- and the proposal was sent to the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 vide order dated 29.10.2018 has sent an intimation to the petitioner intimating that the shop No.44 in ‘I’ Block has been allotted to him subject to payment of difference amount of Rs.29,77,575/- after deducting Rs.4,42,425/- which has been paid by him at the time of allotment of shop No.F-63 to the Market Committee, to get the lease-cum-sale agreement executed in his favour.
3. The petitioner states that the allotment of the shop in ‘I’ Block does redress his grievance as raised in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner points out that the price that is fixed is exorbitant and the Authorities have not considered the fact that he was a previous allottee of shop No.F-63 and he was constrained to move this Court seeking for an alternative allotment as the area in which the allotment was made earlier was not developed. He further submits that taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not enjoyed any rights, as regards the earlier allotment, though allotment was made in ‘F’ Block earlier, the Authority concerned ought to have weighed with all relevant facts in mind while fixing the price. He further submits that the respondent-Authorities ought not to have treated the petitioner as an applicant for fresh allotment and ought to have given due consideration to the circumstances under which the petitioner had sought for an alternate allotment.
4. Noting that the grievance of the petitioner is redressed as regards allotment, nothing survives for further adjudication. However, the grievance of the petitioner as regards fixation of price is taken note of and the petitioner is directed to make appropriate representation to the respondent No.3 detailing necessary considerations that ought to be taken while fixing the price as regards the petitioner is concerned. If such representation is made to respondent No.3, the same shall be considered in accordance with applicable law and procedure within a period of six weeks. In the meanwhile, no precipitative action will be taken for non-
payment of allotment amount till appropriate decision is taken as detailed above.
Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 makes certain submissions as regards his allotment, the same, however, cannot be looked into in the present petition and respondent No.4 is at liberty to ventilate his grievance in appropriate proceedings.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SN/-