Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT KALABURAGI
G. Narendar, J.
Mohammed Shah Nawaz – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 200467 of 2015
Decided On : 01-03-2019
Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 - Section 9 - Whether the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have followed the gamut of Rule 8(1)(iii) or the compliance is more in breach - Whether the same is dispatched - Whether the Rules of 2004 permit or vests such authority in the instant respondents - Whether allotments/distribution of sites/shops/godowns is in compliance with the provisions of the Rule 8(iii) and sub Rules (1), (3) and (4) of Rule 3 of Allotment of Property in Market Yard Rules, 2004 - Petitioner and other allottees were of the opinion that the rates fixed were on higher side and hence, approached this Court in W.P. Nos.84305-394/2012 and aggrieved by the order passed therein, preferred W.A. Nos.50658-747/2012 and also preferred a Review Petition therein. Division Bench after hearing the parties was pleased to reserve liberty to the parties to approach the 1st respondent Appellate Authority and in pursuance thereof, the parties preferred an appeal, registered as Appeal No. CO 04 MLW 2013 and Appellate Authority was pleased to check the same. But in the interregnum, the 2nd respondent reviewed the prices and was pleased to revise the price fixed by the 4th respondent by order was impugned by the petitioner and others - Court was pleased to reject the same. But while so rejecting the petition – Held, finding would be a situation where either the market committee is newly formed. Secondly, where the number of shops or sites available for allotment is more than the number of applicants. In such a situation, the fixation of the seniority would be on the number of years market fee is paid i.e., in respect of members who have paid the market fee in the previous three years a separate list shall be drawn up. Another seniority list consisting of members who have paid market fee for two years should be drawn up separately and another seniority list of the members who have paid market fee for one year only ought to be drawn up separately. For otherwise, if the market committee is permitted to pool all the members in the same list, it would amount to defeating the provisions of clause (iii) and also give scope for manipulation and mischief as done in the instant case - An analogy may be drawn to demonstrate the mischief - Then his average would be worked out as done in the instant case. The legislature only to prevent such a mischief has stipulated the period of previous three years - allotted to anyone or the allottee has withdrawn his application - Writ petition is allowed
G. Narendar, J.
The case of the petitioner is that he is carrying out business under the name and style of Shah Nawaz and Brothers at vegetable market at Kalaburagi and a licence granted by the 4th respondent since 2008. The Copy of the registration and licence is produced as Annexure A.
2. That the 4th respondent in order to better regulate the yard and to facilitate the wholesale business in fruits and vegetables of the licencees, constructed a market yard at Taj Sultanpura Area, Kalaburagi. That the petitioner and similarly situated businessmen applied for sites and shops. The applications were made pursuant to notification dated 12.04.2010. The notification was issued by the 5th respondent. That the petitioner has applied for allotment of site No.73 and the copy of the application is marked as Annexure B to the writ petition.
3. That the 5th respondent prepared a provisional list of allottees and also published the same in a daily Kannada newspaper and in the publication dated 01.09.2013, the name of the petitioner was listed at Sl. No.76. Copy of which is marked as Annexure C to the writ petition.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and other allottees were of the opinion that the rates fixed were on the higher side and hence, approached this Court in W.P. Nos.84305-394/2012 and aggrieved by the order passed therein, preferred W.A. Nos.50658-747/2012 and also preferred a Review Petition therein. The Division Bench after hearing the parties was pleased to reserve liberty to the parties to approach the 1st respondent Appellate Authority and in pursuance thereof, the parties preferred an appeal, registered as Appeal No. CO 04 MLW 2013 and the Appellate Authority was pleased to check the same. But in the interregnum, the 2nd respondent reviewed the prices and was pleased to revise the price fixed by the 4th respondent by order dated 17.11.2012. The order dated 17.11.2012 was impugned by the petitioner and others in W.P. Nos.20494-20570/2013. This Court was pleased to reject the same. But while so rejecting the petition, this Court observed and directed that such of those petitioners whose names are found in the provisional list shall not be discriminated while making allotment merely because they have been litigating.
5. It is contended that despite the above direction, the name of the petitioner was deleted and did not find a place in the final list. It is submitted that aggrieved, the petitioner got issued the legal notice dated 07.08.2014 to the 4th respondent. That the 4th respondent though in receipt of the same, chose not to reply to the same and continued the process of allotment of the sites and more particularly the site in respect of which the petitioner had applied and the illegal allotment was further compounded by allotting the same to ineligible members.
6. That aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again approached this Court in W.P. No.204990/2014 and when the petition came up for consideration, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that the 2nd respondent after considering the objections raised in respect of the selection of the petitioner was pleased to alter the seniority of the petitioner from Sl. No.76 to 79 and consequently on account of alteration of seniority, the petitioner was rendered ineligible for allotment. Recording the said submission, the writ petition was disposed off as not pressed and by reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement rejecting his application for allotment. That subsequently, the said endorsement was communicated vide endorsement dated 21.10.2014 produced as Annexure G to the writ petition.
7. It is contended that the sole reason set out is that objections had been received and after considering the objections, it was found that the 6th respondent was higher in the order of merit and hence, the seniority of the petitioner had been altered and consequently down graded and hence, the pet
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
