IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.5428 OF 2017 (APMC) BETWEEN:
SYED AZEEMUDDIN SON OF LATE S. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, KARNATAKA MANGO MANDI, APMC YARD, CHANNAPATNA AND RESIDING AT NO.12, KALANAGAR, T.K. ROAD CROSS, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.
(BY SRI SIDDESWARA N.K., ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.11, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, CHANNAPATNA-562 120.
3. MR. NIZAM ALI BAIG, SON OF HYDER ALI BAIG, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, A.M. FRUITS MANDI, AND RESIDENT OF M.K. DOODI, H. MOGANAHALLI POST, MALLURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED; R-3 DELETED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON I.A.NO.1 OF 2017 FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FILED IN WRIT PETITION NO.40855 OF 2012 DATED 13/07/2017 AND BE PLEASED TO EXTEND THE TIME BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RECEIVE THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 29/06/2017 AND TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED AS ORDERED IN WRIT PETITION NO.40855 OF 2012 DATED 28/02/2013 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPLICATION.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2017, the petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The appellant is the second writ petitioner who filed the instant writ petition to quash the impugned endorsement of the respondents and to direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to remit the balance consideration. I.A.No.1 of 2017 was filed seeking extension of time to make the balance payment. The writ was filed in the year 2012. It was noted in the impugned order that in the year 2013, the petitioner was permitted to pay the remaining amount with 12% interest, within four years. Thereafter, no payment has been made. Therefore, I.A.No.1 of 2017 was rejected.
3. We find no good ground to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. Substantial leniency has been shown to the writ petitioner.
He has not chosen to avail it. Firstly, the payments are not being made to the respondents on time. Even after filing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge granted him time, even then, no payment has been made. Therefore, we find no bonafides shown by the appellant inspite of leniency shown. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-