IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.58481-502 OF 2013 (GM – RES) BETWEEN:
1. MRS. SYEDA SAMREEN BANU WIFE OF SYED SAMIULLA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WARD 13, NEAR FORT KAMALAPURA POST, HOSPET TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.
2. SMT.K.V.ARUNA WIFE OF LATE K.S.VIJAYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.30 PATTABIRAMANAGAR KAMALAPURA VILLAGE – 583 221 HOSPET TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.
3. SRI.N.MUTTHAIH SON OF OBAYYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.6 KAMALAPURA VILLAGE HOSPET TQ BELLARY DISTRICT.
4. SRI.K.RAYAPPA SON OF THIPPESWAMI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.293 CHAPPARADALLI AREA 76 VENKATAPURA HOSPET TQ BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 132.
5. SRI.D.SHADAKASHRI SON OF SHARABANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.13/13 FORT AREA, PANDURANGA TEMPLE SURROUNDINGS KAMALAPURA HOSPET – 583 221.
6. SRI.SYED SAMIULLA SON OF ASADULLA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WARD 13, NEAR FORT KAMALAPURA POST HOSPET TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.
7. SRI.OBAIAH SON OF BASAYYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.6 CHOWDI KERI KAMALAPUR KAMALAPURA – 583 221 HOSPET TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.
8. SRI.M.CHIDAMBARA SON OF M.N.JOGAYYA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.74 WARD 6, KAMALAPUR, HOSPET TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT.
9. SMT. PARVATHAMMA WIFE OF SRI.RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT 1ST WARD 76, VENKATAPURAM, HOSPET TQ BELLARY DISTRICT.
10. SRI.H.JAMBAIAH SON OF NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 1ST WARD, 76, VENKATAPURAM HOSPET TQ BELLARY DISTRICT.
11. SRI.N.DURUGAPPA SON OF BARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 1ST WARD, 76, VENKATAPURAM HOSPET TQ BELLARY DISTRICT.
12. SRI.K.DHANANJAYA SON OF TIPPASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 1ST WARD, 76, VENKATAPURAM HOSPET TQ BELLARY DISTRICT.
13. SMT. MALLAMMA D/O KADAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 1ST WARD, 76, VENKATAPURAM HOSPET TQ BELLARY DISTRICT.
14. SRI.K.CHANDRAMOULI SON OF TIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 1ST WARD, 76, VENKATAPURAM HOSPET TQ, BELLARY DISTRICT.
15. SRI.K.NINGAPPA SON OF GALEPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 1ST WARD, 76, VENKATAPURAM HOSPET TQ BELLARY DISTRICT.
16. SRI.K.UMESH SON OF VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 1ST WARD, 76, VENKATAPURAM HOSPET TQ BELLARY DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES NEW DELHI – 110 011.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (SSI, TEXTILE & INDUSTRIES) VIKASA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELLARY DISTRICT BELLARY – 583 101.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009.
5. INDIA SUGAR AND REFINERIES LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CHITAWADGI, HOSPET BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 101.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GOWHAR UNNISA, CGC FOR R1 – ABSENT; SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R2 – 4;
SRI.KALYAN S BASAVARAJ, ASG FOR R1 – ABSENT; SRI.H.N.SHASHIDHARA, ADV., FOR R5 - ABSENT) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SUGARCANE CONTROL [REGULATION OF DISTRIBUTION [HOSPET]] ORDER 1998 VIDE ANNEXURE – A ISSUED BY THE R2 IN SO FAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr.L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Y.D.Harsha, AGA for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the Karnataka Sugarcane (Regulation and Distribution (Hospet) Order, 1998 as well as Karnataka Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 2013.
3. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.5 namely, India Sugar and Refineries Limited has stopped its operation. Therefore, he does not intend to challenge the validity of the aforesaid provisions at this point of time. However, he further submits that the liberty be granted to the petitioner to challenge the same in case occasion arises.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, writ petitions are disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the aforesaid provisions in case occasion arises.
Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ