IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.29659/2017 (APMC) Between:
M/s. Sangam Enterprises, A-1, 2nd Main Road, APMC Yard, Batawadi, Tumkur – 572 103, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri T.N. Ravikumar, S/o T.B. Siddaramaiah, Age about 47 years. ... Petitioner (By Sri B.R. Sathenahalli, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Co-operation, Multistoried Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Director, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, No.16, II Cross, Raj Bhavan Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
3. The Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Batawadi, Tumkur – 572 103. ... Respondents (By Ms. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1;
Sri T. Swaroop, Advocate for R-2 & R-3) The Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to implement the order of this Hon’ble Court as per Annexure-G dated 16.11.2015 made in W.P. No.57820/2014 as per Annexure-F and convert the leave and license of the petitioner in respect of shop cum godown bearing No.A1 situated in APMC Yard, Tumkur into lease cum sale basis sought as per the representation of the petitioner dated 6.11.2008 as per Annexure-C forthwith, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner was allotted shop cum Godown bearing No.A-1, situated at 2nd Main Road, APMC ward Tumakuru. The petitioner in terms of Rule 12(2) of the Allotment of Property in Market Yard Rules, 2004 (for short “Rules of 2004”) had requested for conversion of the leave and license agreement into lease cum sale. The petitioner had in fact filed W.P.No.57820/2014 seeking for appropriate relief and the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 7.2.2015 directing the respondent – authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner. Subsequent to the order at Annexure– F, Annexure-G has come to be passed on 16.11.2015 wherein, the Director, Agricultural Produce Market Committee taking note of the directions passed in W.P.No.57820/2014 once again had rejected the request of the petitioner for conversion of leave cum license to lease cum sale. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition has sought for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to implement the order passed in W.P.No.57820/2014 and to convert the leave and license of the petitioner into lease-cum sale.
2. Though the rejection of the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-G has not been assailed, the consideration of representation of the petitioner would be permissible only if Annexure-G is set aside. It is noticed that as on the date of passing of the order at Annexure-G, ban of considering conversion of leave and license into lease cum sale existed in light of the circular dated 29.9.2015 issued by the Director of Agricultural Produce Market Committee.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the order at Annexure-G, even otherwise, could not have been different in view of the decision taken by the Government on 3.9.2015 to keep in abeyance Rule 12(2) of Rules of 2004.
4. In fact the consideration of the request of the petitioner at Annexure-G and its rejection on 16.11.2015 stating that the application cannot be considered as Marketing Committee itself had required the said shops, is legally untenable in the light of the Circular dated 29.9.2015. Rule 12(2) was kept in abeyance between 29.9.2015 and 21.6.2017. If that were to be so, the request of the petitioner ought not to have been considered on its merits as rightly contended by the petitioner’s counsel. Taking note of the said contention and also that the request of the petitioner has been pending for appropriate consideration since 6.11.2008, it is appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-G and taking note of the communication at Annexure-J dated 21.6.2017, whereby earlier circular dated 29.9.2015 has been withdrawn, it would be appropriate to direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reconsider the request of the petitioner at Annexure-C dated 6.11.2008, in accordance with law. The petitioner is to make available such other material as may be required for effective consideration of his request at Annexure-C. The said consideration would be completed within a period of four months from the date of release of this Order. Contentions of all parties are kept open.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is also necessary to notice that though the rejection of the petitioner’s request dated 16.11.2015 was not challenged in light of the facts and contentions raised, appropriate relief has been moulded by the Court as above.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct:mhp