Karnataka High Court
M/S.Gollaleshwar Traders,Through Its ... vs The Director Ofagricultural Marketing on 25 March, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA.
DATED THIS THE 25TI--I DAY OF MARCH, 2010;
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE ANA.ND V
WRIT PETITION NOS. 80058'::.80=:)_'sO Orr. 2'Oj1Q:~»
A/W WRIT PETITION 1\§OS,Iv8OO(:31{--~A8O063 2010,} "
WRIT PETITION NOS. 800_64.--800'66 OF 201v0"aw
WRIT PETITION NOS. 80871-80872 OF 201:()'{AP1%{IC)
IN W.P.80058~80060/§'i§J.0:ifH:
BETWEEN:
1. M/ S. Go11aie:'s}I§I<aT
Through * C
Sharaf1ap'paiiS / O" CB'_"agavikOti
Age: 21_.__0 years';',@r.;c:I _BL:_Sin_eSs
R/0 Shahabad, Tq.,_C'h__i£tapur
Dist. Gu'}b4_aI'ga." _ A
2. M V'eerabha--£ireshwar Dal Industries
' . ThrOu5,f_'r;h its Partfiiéf Mahalingappa
__ » Sfo Channappa Inginshetty
' Agei I*5éi*--yeaVTS,V_i0cc: Business
'R/"0 'Sha}':iab:&{CI, Tq. Chittapur
Dist. Gulbézrga.
Petitioners
Nadagouda, Advocate)
' ' A» C' The Director of Agricultural Marketing
R)
No. 16, Raj Bhavan Road, P.B.No.5309
Bangalore - 580 001.
The Secretary _.
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee V ' '
Chittapur, Dist. Gulbarga.
(By Shri Shivakumar Tengli. AGA {gr Raj, fr '
Shri S.S.Kumman. Advocate for'R~2_) '
This Writ Petition is fiiedrunder Artieies
227 of the Constitution of Indiafpraying t'o:._ _
1)
1;
issue a writ of certiorariQiquatshing }Ar'rnexL1re--B to B1 vide
orders dated 25.11.08 *-No.5é._§n5;--:;;a,»'5;§3s2162/9;-said/{)8-()9
E§é.eu"o.m.:i:2,322116/F;:--?3§/03-g;9'; -- " V' V' " '
issue a writ ofrriandarnus'-iroV"'the respondents to consider
the _rs:preAs'entatio_n_ tthe'----.pe:"titioner produced at
Anne.:é<ure--F"'a11d take further steps to make the layout on
the grotind in 'acfCoprdar1ce""wit1i layout map and also take
steps to "derr1areate "th_.e". sites of the petitioners by
numbering' thern and etc.)
, rm wigsooszasoioesp/2010:
'V''._j3EfI'WEE_N: :
Basavaraj Patii Traders
Through its Proprietor Sri. Somashekar
S / o Basavaraj Patil
Age: 29"years, Occ: Business
RV/'oshahabacl, Tq. Chittapur,
'~_IJist'. Guibarga.
-'idheemashankar S / o Akhendappa Wali
?%
Through its Proprietor Sri. Bheemashankar
S / o Akhendappa Wali,
Age: 36 years. R/o Shahabad.
Tq. Chittapur, Dist: Gulbarga.
3. Siddaganga Basavaraj Traders
Through its Partner Smt. Siddaganga
W/o Basavaraj, Age: 45 years,
Occ: Business, R/o Shahabad,
Tq. Chittapur, Dist. Gulbarga. A _ p
" , .Pe'titioj_ne.rs
(By Shri R.V. Nadagoude, Advoeate)._
AND: 2 it
1. The Director of *Argricu1tu--ra} it
No.16, Raj Bhajran Roac1,--Vi?'.B;N0-.5309
Bangalore"?"56@._..Q.D1,1.._ ' V' v .
2. The S'eo'ret.ai':y 2"}:-1 2' , =
Agricultural }+"rod"uce« M'a,rketing Committee
Chittapur_, Dist; A .C~u}'oa'r'ga,.
2 . 2 Respondents
(By Sh:-i. Shivaknmar Tengii, AGA for R-1.
S;S.Kurr1man. Advocate for R-2)
' Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
A227._rof thve«._Cv"onsti:tution of India, praying to:
1] iissue of certiorari. quashing Annexure--B to B3 vide
orders" dated 25.1 }_.08 No.eé.<m3.a'p*a.;"'q:a3:2:86/e32,3§/03-09
V ..fi,e'c.a:'o?g.p:2.%:2i52/waif?/03-09 and 8ni.¢°JL:.a";'i;'<"-ti,-.e";?,3:2:as/63233/()8-(:9.
_' =__2}._is'su:e a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider
the representation of the petitioner produced at
2 7Annexure--F and take further steps to make the layout on
r "No; 16, Raj Bhavan Road, P.s.No.5309
___7Banga1ore - 560 001.
IN
the ground in accordance with layout map and also take
steps to demarcate the sites of the petitioners by
numbering them and etc.
W.P.80064-80066/2010:
BETWEEN:
1.
M/s. Santosh Trading Co. Comxnis
Through its Partner .. . _
Hanumanth Rao S / 0 Changnappa.Ingir1shetty" * '
Age: 59 years, Occ: Busincss'--~.e. P' .
R/0 Shahabad, Tq. Chittapu'r,_7
Dist. Guibarga. '
sien Ag<;'I1.tV"' V
M /s. C.A. Inginshetty'CGmrniissi0n
Through its Partner SVri_."S_ha_ranabasa'ppa
S / 0 Veerabhadrappa'Alngirishettyg V
Age: 30 years, Qccz B.us'3iness4;'
R/0 shahauaa;~rc;. Chi.t_tapu--r V;
Dist. Gu1b.arg_a.;:_ '
M / s. Prashanti Sbemashiekar Margol Trader
Through. its Pr'cprietor"*Prashant
S /o_S0rna'shek.ar-_1\/iargcil
Age: 30 year's;._Occ: Business,
V' _ R,/.0" S_hah.abad, Chittapur.
. :D.ist: _vGwu}bvarga.
... Petitioners
[Bydfiftri Rfiifnriadagouda, Advocate}
Director of Agricultural Marketing
\,
5;
{_/"
2. The Secretary
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
Chittaptir, Dist. Gulbarga.
[By S1111 Shivakumar Tengli, AGA for R-1,
Shri S.S.Kumman, Advocate for R-2)
... Respondents ~
This Writ Petition is filed under.4ArtioieVs":'32sE§"and C"
227 of the Constitution of India, praying' to':._» "
1) issue a writ of eertiorari, quashing A'ia_nexure:B5- toB3 vjjfde
orders dated 25.11.08 '~.._NQ.i'%.ii;"0;€Ii>E.7%aJ5?,3§2vi2(}}{i9Z'5§I'{)'i§-(39
a'é.a:'c.a3Ja.:-S:'a3:21 :3/2-3>2',_3€«/()3-<39 and §&.erb'.,:;':3:»...$:2,3:21'6x.i?;~32,5i:"/02509.
2) issue a Writ of mandarn.11s_to«_thje' respondents to consider
the representation of theC'="peti_t1ioherV' 'produced at
Annexure--F andtake further steps to'vmak.'e' the iayout on
the ground in azgcordance \_§rith..VE'a;§ko1it.ri:ap and also take
steps to de_rna:iee'ate.V "the. sites'i. of "1:h'e petitioners by
numbering triem"a1i;1 betej;~--.._ ' '
IN w.1>.'a»:;_os7i}s'os7f2{2oj1o:i i
BETWEEN": *
1. M,/s.'VS'a_1eern'Trtayding Co. Commission Agent
-. T11-rough its Propfietor
» fsbduiv Rehman S / 0 Mehboob Sab Dancloti
Agez' 58.yea1:s,_i..Occ: Business
'R/o' Shahiaijoad, Tq. Chittapur,
Dist. Cxulbfarga.
_M/ R.:'S. Margo} Commission Agent
* V'Fhr_otigh its Partner Sn'. Siddappa
S,' o' Sornashekarappa Margol
'Age: 33 years, Oeo: Business
FR/o Shahabad, Tq. Chittapur
/7
6
Dist. Guibarga.
... Petitioners
(By Shri R.V. Nadagouda, Advocate)
AND:
1. T he Director of Agricultural Marketing
No.16, Raj Bhavan Road, P.B.N; '.53'{}9t
Bangalore -- 560 001. A
2. The Secretary V
Agricultural Produce Marketing .Comrni_ttee_
Chittapur, Dist. Guiharga. V' * ' ~
' it Respondents
{By Shri Shivakumar Tengii-Q AGAihir£n-
Shri S.S.Kum;11an, A;i'vtscar.e"f9'r_ R-2) up '
This dis:ifiiediujncler"Articles 226 and
227 of the Consititutiori offir1dia.A,i--pr'vay'ing to:
1) issue writ of"eertiorarifquashing Annexure~«B1 to B2
vide orders dateciv. '25."1__1';'G8 No.§é.e'n.a$:a.:3:23:2a38/esaaé/08-09
6é.sre.;35a.ro':23s.. /82:33/(v;._8~--o9, and' fi:.3.E;-"L3.cf~,"".>.7"e).§§2,3§2E80/€'32,'3J?3'/()8-()9.
irritit of rnandarnus to the respondents to consider
, the repmsentation of the petitioner produced at
_ génrinezture-.P'ii and take further steps to make the layout on
" .'thi?:"gI""(Jl1'VIl(L'1 infaccordanee with layout map and also take
steps tQ"'s.r1_efr1arcate the sites of the petitioners by
nuH1be_rir1-gthem and etc.
*=k=i=*
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
day, the Court made the foil wing:
/
ORDER
Shri. Shivakumar Tengii, iearned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for Respond.e_ritVV'N'o.a.iV V. and Shri. S.S. Kumman. learned counsel taIa:.esft:otice~-.i for Respondent No.2.
2. Heard the counsei for 4the"a.petitioinersI it petitions coming on for are considered for final disposal the facts and circumstances of that similar petitions have disposiedddiof on certain terms. the same in all these petitions. A V V hit' is the '---petitioners' case that they have been Respondent No.2 in order to enable thernwidtov shops in their respective sites, 'g:_)ursuant'«:_to leasewcumwsaie agreement executed by "Respo'ndent No.2. It is their complaint that Respondent was however required to demarcate the sites and K?
{D mark the same by boundary stones in order to enable the petitioners to commence construction and thisvnot having been done, the petitioners were not in to commence construction. Respondentyhasf however proceeded to cancel the aI1otm_er;sts.__"ongthe specious ground that the petitioners have! it comply with the terms and cori'di_tions of~the--}eas;emcum-- sale agreement, by notices of.'_Viorteit«i;r,e'issueddhtoeach of the petitioners. __It is that the petitioners it
4.:'._Whi1e.VVth.e'r.e"isdaidispiite as to whether or not Respondent._Nce.V2x'i1as.:derrrarcated the sites, the counsel V. «for ReispiondgentiNo..v2___vvou1d vehemently contend that the V.'-._peVtitionersaarevnot correct in contending that the sites are not derriarcated and they were not put in possession 'of the The Very leasemcunrsale agreements Would A ":r1o.tV have been executed without the sites having been dernarcated. As seen in the schedule to the 1ease--curn-- <3 9 sale agreements, the sites are demarcated and are available for construction. it is the petitioners who have failed to put up construction within. the tiine-fratnie' hence the forfeiture notice.
5. However given the circumstances that ]sirni.]iar7. petitions, this Court had disposediiof peti_t_ions«. piacing the petitioners thereindron certain.:"te1*ms;" the present petitions alsocoulddoe edisvposed of' on such terms. Counsel for the resp<")nVd:entsV"aire_not averse to such an order;being' pas_sed;~7 2
6.V?.Ac'cording1y4'thexpetitioners shall seek sanction of plan of the shop within fours Weeks p_froII}*~t;hisA'day ar1d.th__e. application seeking the sanction V.'-..pofr:.i:)ian ~sha,1vlv..'he.._considered by Respondent No.2 within the ptnext izveeks from the date of receipt of the txapplicatiozi and the construction shall be put up in of sanction that may be granted within six from the date of such sanction, failing which 30 the notice of forfeiture issued shall revive and it would be open for Respondent No.2 to take further stepspin accordance with law. AnneXures--B 3 W.P.Nos.80058«80060/2010, AnneXures-B__ -- W.P.Nos.8OO61»80063/2010, Anrnei{iires§'B i:mep':s3pg"'iin W.P.Nos.80064--80086/2010and 'AnneXures41.B':1:' to 1' in W.P.Nos.80871--8O872/2O'VI'{):" are «qaashefi, The petitions are disposed
7. Shri.Shivakuma;f:d' .]flVearned Govt. Advocate is to pfiiie appearance for Respondent '' weeks from today and Shri. SS. Kta_4mman,'4VIea1"ned counsel is permitted to file , his for Respondent No.2 Within two Weeks. Sd/w FUDGE