IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.3529/2019 (APMC) Between:
M/s. Suresh Trading Co., Rep. by its Prop: Sri N. Raju, S/o Sri Narayanaswamy, Age major, Commission Agency, At No.27/11, 2nd Main Road, A.P.M.C. Yard, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022. ... Petitioner (By Sri S.V. Angadi, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operation and A.P.M.C., M.S. Building, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, M.S. Building, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Director, Agricultural Marketing in Karnataka, No.1/1, II Raj Bhavan Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. Director of Town Planning in Karnataka, M.S. Building, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
5. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Head office at Church Street, Bengaluru – 560 001, By its Commissioner.
6. 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-4; Sri H.T. Basavaraja, Advocate for R-5; Sri T. Swaroop, Advocate for R-6) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the O.M. dated 03.01.2019 as per Annexure-C and O.M. dated 10.01.2019 Annexure-E issued by the Respondent No.6 as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra-vires, 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 has challenged the official memorandums at Annexure-C dated 3.1.2019 and Annexure-E dated 10.1.2019, whereby the licence of the petitioner had been suspended for a period between 11.1.2019 and 9.2.2019.
2. The counsel for the respondent No.6 states that noticing violation of conditions of grant of licence in so far as petitioner was trading in commodities in places impermissible, show cause notice came to be issued and after considering the reply, impugned official memorandums have been passed.
3. The petitioner states that with respect to the show cause notice dated 30.11.2018 he had submitted a written reply on 7.1.2019 vide Annexure-D. The petitioner counsel contends that his explanation at Annexure-D has not been considered and the explanation offered makes out a sufficient reply and the authority ought to have accepted the said explanation.
4. However, in view of the fact that impugned official memorandums are limited in its operation from 11.1.2019 to 9.2.2019, this Court at this juncture is of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to intervene in the matter and adjudicate. Further, the counsel for the petitioner states that henceforth he would abide by the terms and conditions of the licence.
5. In view of official memorandum at Annexure-C being for a limited period from 4.1.2019 to 10.1.2019, at this stage in light of passing of Annexure-E which is an order relating to a subsequent period, the challenge to the order at Annexure-C does not require adjudication.
6. In the event, if any fresh violation is made out, respondents are at liberty to take action, after prior notice and affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, to make out his reply. The respondent – authority to take note of the reply made on 7.1.2019 in the event of issuing any fresh notice for a violation.
7. Taking note of the same, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct:mhp