Karnataka High Court
Sri. S. Bhoopal vs State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16281
WP No. 14052 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 14052 OF 2021 (APMC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. BHOOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S. ESHWAR TRADERS,
ONION POTATO MERCHANTS
AND COMMISSION AGENTS,
NO. 190, BLOCK DASANAPUR,
SUB-MARKET,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed by B
K
BENGALURU - 560 001.
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL
KARNATAKA
MARKETING AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
NO.16/11, RAJABHAVANA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE,
YESHAVANTHAPUR,
TUMAKURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 022,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.HEMALATHA V., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
DR.NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16281
WP No. 14052 of 2021
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
26.2.2021 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE R-2 A COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner asserts that the third respondent allotted shop No.12 in Garlic Complex, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru, and later in 2017, also allotted shop-cum-godown No.190 at Basanapura sub-market on a leave and license basis by executing an agreement on 13.03.2017. This agreement was initially for a period of 11 months, renewable for a maximum period of 55 months. The possession certificate was issued pursuant to the agreement executed in favor of the petitioner.
2. The third respondent issued an order dated 29.03.2019 suspending the license granted to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the arrears of the license fee and also dues to the farmers. The petitioner submitted an application to the third respondent, requesting not to forfeit the shop-cum-godown allotted, stating that the farmer's dues amounting to Rs.2,55,000/- had been paid. The third respondent, in its meeting held on 06.05.2020, resolved to cancel the allotment of the shop-cum-godown and forfeited the EMD deposited by the petitioner. This decision was communicated to the petitioner by an order dated 14.05.2020. The petitioner's grievance is that the representation submitted for revoking the suspension order has gone in vain despite having cleared the farmer's dues and being willing to pay the arrears of the license fee.
-3-NC: 2024:KHC:16281 WP No. 14052 of 2021
3. The appeal filed under Section 132 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act, 1966') was dismissed by the second respondent. In light of the interim order dated 11.08.2021, the petitioner claims to have deposited the entire arrears of the license fee with a penalty, which is not disputed by the third respondent-Market Committee, as well as the payment of the farmer's dues. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that criminal proceedings have been lodged against the petitioner for contravention of Section 78(a) read with Section 118(A) of the Act, 1966, and the same is pending consideration in C.C. No.26218/2019 before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned counsel for the respondent- Market Committee.
5. The petitioner was allotted the shop-cum-godown on a leave and license basis as stated under Rule 13 of the Rules, 2004, subject to certain terms and conditions. The petitioner, having not deposited the arrears of the license fee, justified the third respondent in canceling the allotment. The petitioner states that the non-payment of the arrears fees was due to the fact that the petitioner suffered a loss while carrying on trade in the market yard at Dasanapura. The petitioner, in light of the interim order passed by this Court, has deposited the entire arrears of the license fee along with penal interest. It is also undisputed that the petitioner has paid the entire dues to the farmers, though belatedly.
6. The allotment of the shop-cum-godown on a leave and license basis can be canceled only for violations of the Rules, 2004, or for violations of the conditions imposed in the agreement. In this case, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:16281 WP No. 14052 of 2021 the only violation was that the petitioner had not paid the entire arrears of the license fee; however, in light of the interim order granted by this Court, he has paid the entire arrears of the license fee along with penal interest. Therefore, the non-payment of the dues to the farmers and the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner for said contravention cannot be grounds for cancellation of the allotment.
7. The allotment of the shop-cum-godown on a leave and license basis can be renewed for a maximum period of 55 months. The allotment was made in the year 2017, and the 55 months have now expired.
8. Given that the term of the leave and license granted to the petitioner has expired, the petitioner is granted the liberty to file an application for conversion of the leave and license basis into a lease- cum-sale agreement as stated under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 12 of the Rules, 2004, with the third respondent-Market Committee.
9. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the second respondent at Annexure-G and the endorsement dated 14.05.2020 issued by the third respondent at Annexure -E are hereby quashed.
iii. The Petitioner is granted liberty to file an application strictly in terms of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 12 of the Rules, 2004, within four weeks from the date of receipt of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:16281 WP No. 14052 of 2021 certified copy of this order. If such an application is submitted, the third respondent is directed to consider the application strictly in terms of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 12 of the Rules, 2004, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within a period of two months from the date of the application submitted by the petitioner.
iv. The pendency of the criminal case shall not be a ground for rejecting the application for conversion; however, if the petitioner's application is approved, it shall be subject to the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
v. It is needless to state that the license granted in favour of the petitioner for commission agency is revived and extended upto the validity.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA