D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR
ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
( 1 ) ALL these petitions are by persons who have dealings in the notified agricultural produce, as the expression occurs within the meaning of sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966. (for short, 'the Act' ).
( 2 ) WHILE most of the petitioners are in fact what is known as 'market functionaries', within the meaning of this phrase as it occurs in sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the Act and are also licensed market functionaries, having sought for and obtained licences to function so within the notified area in respect of the Agricultural Produce Market committees (APMC), only the petitioner in W. P. No. 39753 of 2004, namely M/s. ITC Limited, is not a licensed market functionary within the market area of the APMC, Doddaballapur, within which area this petitioner has some activities in relation to the notified agricultural produces namely wheat and other produces.
( 3 ) PETITIONERS have approached this Court even at the threshold praying for certain relief and the common cause made by all these petitioners is with regard to the liability for payment of any market fee under the provisions of the Act
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.