IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.45674/2018 C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.45786/2018, 45787/2018, 45788/2018, 45789/2018 (APMC) W.P. No.45674/2018 Between:
Sri N.K. Ramachandrashekar, S/o. Late Sri R. Kantharajashetty, Major in age, Aged about 40 years, Proprietor Kanthraj Shetty & Bro., Merchants & Commission Agents, At No.85, 3rd Main Road, A.P.M.C. Yard, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 22. ... Petitioner (By Sri S.V. Angadi, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operation & A.P.M.C., M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Director, Agricultural Marketing in Karnataka, No.1/1, II Raj Bahvan Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Director of Town Planning in Karnataka, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Head Office at Church Street, Bengaluru – 560 001, By its Commissioner.
5. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tumakuru Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022, By its Secretary. ... Respondents (By Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1 to R-3; Sri Gururaj Joshi, Advocate for R-4;
Sri Mallikarjuna C. Basareddy, Advocate for R-5) This Writ Petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to quash the Notification dated: 16.08.2017 issued by the President of the Respondent No.5 Annexure-F as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra-vires, etc., W.P. No.45786/2018 Between:
Sri N.R. Nandeesh, S/o. Late N.R. Renukaradya, Major in Age, No.47, 2nd Main Road, A.P.M.C. Yard, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 22. ... Petitioner (By Sri S.V. Angadi, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operation & A.P.M.C., M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Director, Agricultural Marketing in Karnataka, No.1/1, II Raj Bahvan Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Director of Town Planning in Karnataka, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Head Office at Church Street, Bengaluru – 560 001, By its Commissioner.
5. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tumakuru Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022, By its Secretary. ... Respondents (By Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1 to R-3;
Sri Manjunatha N. Byrareddy, Advocate for R-4; Sri Mallikarjuna C. Basareddy, Advocate for R-5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Notification dated 16.08.2017 issued by the President of the Respondent No.5 (Annexure-F) as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra-vires, etc.
W.P. No.45787/2018 Between:
Mahalakshmi Traders a prop: Concern by:
Kodeeshwaran M., S/o Sri S. Muthuswamy, Major in age, Trading at No.56, Kirana Complex, A.P.M.C. Yard, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022 ... Petitioner (By Sri S.V. Angadi, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operation & A.P.M.C., M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Director, Agricultural Marketing in Karnataka, No.1/1, II Raj Bahvan Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Director of Town Planning in Karnataka, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Head Office at Church Street, Bengaluru – 560 001, By its Commissioner.
5. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tumakuru Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022, By its Secretary. ... Respondents (By Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1 to R-3; Sri Gururaj Joshi, Advocate for R-4;
Sri Mallikarjuna C. Basareddy, Advocate for R-5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Notification dated 16.08.2017 issued by the President of the Respondent No.5 (Annexure-E) as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra-vires, etc.
W.P. No.45788/2018 Between:
Ashok Traders, A Partnership Firm, By its Managing Partner, Smt. Gomathi K., W/o. M. Kodeeswaran, Age: 37 years, R/at 1853 5th A Main Road, Humpi Nagar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040. ... Petitioner (By Sri S.V. Angadi, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operation & A.P.M.C., M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Director, Agricultural Marketing in Karnataka, No.1/1, II Raj Bahvan Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Director of Town Planning in Karnataka, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Head Office at Church Street, Bengaluru – 560 001, By its Commissioner.
5. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tumakuru Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022, By its Secretary. ... Respondents (By Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1 to R-3; Sri Girish Kumar C.S., Advocate for R-4;
Sri Mallikarjuna C. Basareddy, Advocate for R-5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to hold that the action of Respondent No.5 in refusing entry of vehicles carrying agricultural produce to be marketed through the agency of the petitioner as illegal unconstitutional and ultra-vires, etc.
W.P. No.45789/2018 Between:
Janatha Traders, A Partnership Firm, By it Managing Partner:
Smt. Mamatha, D/o. Sri Dayanand, Age: 31 years, R/at E-58, Ganapathi Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 058. ... Petitioner (By Sri S.V. Angadi, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operation & A.P.M.C., M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Director, Agricultural Marketing in Karnataka, No.1/1, II Raj Bahvan Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Director of Town Planning in Karnataka, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Head Office at Church Street, Bengaluru – 560 001, By its Commissioner.
5. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Tumakuru Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022, By its Secretary. ... Respondents (By Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1 to R-3; Sri Shivaswamy, Advocate for R-4;
Sri Mallikarjuna C. Basareddy, Advocate for R-5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Notification dated 16.08.2017 issued by the President of the Respondent No.5 (Annexure-H) as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra-vires, etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R These Writ Petitions involve identical facts, substantially similar prayers and raise common issues, the same are disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioners are traders in onion, garlic and potato and have been carrying on their trade in the Yeshwantpura Market Yard and it is stated that they possess necessary licences. The petitioners state that the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter “APMC”) had taken a decision to shift the Yeshwantpur Market Yard to Dasanapura, which was a measure to decongest the market at the Yeshwantpura Market Yard.
3. At the first instance notification dated 16.08.2017 came to be passed by the APMC whereby, with effect from 18.08.2017, all vehicles carrying agricultural produce referred to above, were required to obtain necessary gate pass at the Dasanapura sub- market.
4. It is stated that the said notification was in pursuance of the decision to shift trade in certain commodities to the new sub-market at Dasanapura.
5. The traders at Yeshwantpur being dissatisfied with the arrangements and facilities at the sub-market at Dasanapura objected to the abrupt shifting. It was contended that the transition from Yeshwantpura to Dasanapura was sought to be implemented abruptly and without taking note of the grievances of the traders.
6. The petitioners state that forceful shifting to the Dasanapura sub-market was sought to be ensured by measures such as the notification dated 16.08.2017, which caused immense hardship to the petitioners. It is further stated that, by not issuing gate passes at Yeshwantpura, the petitioners were being forced to shift to the Dasanapura sub-market yard without there being sufficient facilities to facilitate trading activity of the petitioners at the Dasanapura sub-market yard.
7. Hence, aggrieved by the action of the APMC, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions and seek the following common reliefs:
(a) Issuance of an appropriate writ to quash the notification dated 16.08.2017 as being illegal and (b) Appropriate order declaring that the action of the APMC in refusing entry of vehicles bringing produce to the petitioners by non-issuance of gate passes was illegal.
8. The counsel for the APMC has contended that the Dasanapura sub-market yard had been set up with huge investment and that it was intended that the traders in onion, garlic and potato would shift to the new market yard. However, it has been pointed out that the committee has passed a resolution on 30.12.2017, whereby the restrictions imposed in the notification dated 16.08.2017 was modified to the extent that traders operating at Yeshwantpura Market Yard, could have gate passes issued with respect to vehicles with supply at the Yeshwantpura Market Yard itself.
9. Accordingly, it is contended that the challenge to the notification dated 16.08.2017 does not survive in view of the resolution dated 30.12.2017.
10. Taking note of the said submission and the resolution dated 30.12.2017, the challenge to the validity of the notification dated 16.08.2017 does not survive for consideration.
11. However, as regards the submission by the petitioners ventilating their grievances as regards undue delay in issuing of gate passes and lack of adequate facilities at the Dasanapura sub-market yard, the counsel for the APMC submits that remedial measures would be taken so as to address the grievances.
12. Counsel for the APMC states that measures would be taken to address the practical difficulties faced by the traders who possess licenses to carry on trade at the Yeshwantpura Market yard and would also ensure that steps would be taken to minimize delay in issuing of gate passes.
13. Taking note of the submissions by the counsel for the APMC, the petitions are disposed of, as requiring no further orders, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent APMC and seek for addressal of their grievances by making appropriate representations.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct:mhp