IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.40832/2017 (APMC) BETWEEN SREE GURU RENUKA RICE INDUSTRIES MALEBENNUR, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR B M NANJAIAH S/O B M BASAVAIAH.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHIAH P H, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING LAW ENFORCEMENT CELL, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAWAN ROAD, P B.NO. 5309, BANGALORE-560 001 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
4. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C.KAVITA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3, SRI. T.SWAROOP, ADV. FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE DATED 18.8.2017 VIDE ANNEX-P ISSUED BY R-2 AUTHORITY HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST LAW ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this court impugning the notice issued by the second respondent under the provisions of Section 66(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation & Development) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) calling upon the petitioner to furnish the records detailed therein.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice is without jurisdiction and is contrary to the orders passed by this court in W.P. No.12711/2015 and the issue regarding liability of payment of market fee under Section 65 (2) of the Act in respect of the notified produce brought into the market area from outside the state has already been adjudicated and the present exercise is an exercise in futility.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the writ petition came to be disposed off by placing reliance on the ruling of the Division Bench rendered in APMC, Yeshwantpura vs. M/s. Selva Foods and Writ Appeal No.18000/2011 dated 11.01.2013 which has been called in question before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide interim order dated 13.01.2015 has been pleased to stay the operation of the impugned judgment until further orders. The said position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That apart on a perusal of the order passed by this court in W.P. No.12711/2015 it is seen that while disposing off the said writ petition, this court has not issued any writ or direction prohibiting the respondents from initiating action in accordance with law. In fact, on a bare reading of the order, it is discernible that this court, while setting aside the demand for market fee has been pleased to permit the respondents to issue a fresh notice and was pleased to observe that the demand in the present form alone would not be sustainable in the light of the order of the Division Bench.
5. The impugned notice is not called in question on the premise that it emanates from an authority who is not competent to exercise powers. On the other hand the petitioner would contend that the documents sought for by the second respondent have already been handed over to the fourth respondent. The same does not amount to compliance of demand under the impugned notice. The impugned notice does not create any cause of action or lis to maintain the petition. The act of the Statutory Authority calling for furnishing of records is an exercise of statutory powers.
Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition being premature is not maintainable and is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE CT-HR Chs*