Sri. Narendra Modi vs The Deputy Director on 21 December, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Narendra Modi vs The Deputy Director on 21 December, 2018

Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

     WRIT PETITION NO.55390/2018 (APMC)


BETWEEN:

Sri. Narendra Modi
S/o Manjilal Modi
Aged about 40 years
Proprietor
M/s. Jay Trading Company
No.E6(6) APMC yard
Sagar Road
Shivamogga 577204
                                              ...Petitioner
(By Sri. B. Prabhudeva, advocate)

AND:

1.     The Deputy Director
       Department of Agricultural Marketing
       Sagar Road
       Shivamogga 577204

2.    The Director of Agricultural Marketing
     No.16/2, Rajbhavan Road,
     Bengaluru - 560 001.
                                           ... Respondents
(By Sri. S. Chandrashekaraiah, HCGP)
                             2


     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 15/16.11.2018 passed by the respondent at
Annexure-E and etc.,

      This writ petition coming on for orders this day, the
court made the following:

                        ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title to array the Director of Agricultural Marketing as an additional respondent.

3. The petitioner states that as against the order cancelling his license at Annexure-E, dated 15/11/2018, the appeal has been preferred before the Director of Agricultural Marketing and the said appeal is pending.

4. The petitioner submits that the said appeal preferred against the impugned order in terms of Section 72-E (a) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing 3 (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, is still pending consideration. Though the appeal has been filed on 28.11.2018, the prayer for interim relief as against the impugned order has not been considered till date nor the appeal been numbered.

5. The petitioner further states that since his livelihood depends on the continuance of the license, the prayer for interim relief ought to have been considered immediately on his presentation of the appeal.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 states that the Appellate Authority, that is, respondent No.2 would take up the appeal and consider the prayer for interim relief at the earliest.

7. In view of the said submission, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and to consider the prayer for interim relief at the first 4 instance, before going ahead with the appeal proceedings. The said consideration as regards the interim relief to be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

<, Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE DM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court