The Deputy Commissioner has the authority under the Karnataka Municipalities Act to regulate markets in the interest of public health and convenience, and individuals without legal rights as vendors cannot challenge such regulatory decisions.

JUDGMENT

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J. -

In this writ appeal, the appellants have assailed the order passed in W.P.No.202065/2023 dtd. 26/9/2023.

2. In the writ petition, a certiorari was sought to quash Annexure-F issued by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Raichur and Annexure-G and H, notices dtd. 18/7/2023 issued by respondent No.3 - Commissioner, CMC, Raichur.

3. The above writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, reserving liberty to the petitioners to agitate all the contentions before the competent authority. Para-5 and 6 of the order passed in the writ petition is extracted hereunder:

"5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the provision contained under Sec. 322 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to agitate all their contention before the competent authority. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

6. This Court, granted interim order and same stands extended till 11/10/2023 to enable the petitioners to approach the competent authority, if so advised."

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

5. As per the appeal averments, earlier there was one vegetable market for the entire city of Raichur, at Osmania market. The said market neither had the facilities nor the amount of space required to cater the requirements of the growing population, etc. There was no scope whatsoever either for farmers to directly sell their produce nor there was any scope for new vendors to find any ground. The said market was highly centralized and inconvenient for the city dwellers living at far of places to purchase vegetables. Looking into the fact that there was unhealthy concentration and centralization of vegetable market at Raichur which was causing inconvenience to the general public at Raichur city, spread at a diameter of more than 10 kilometers, the CMC, Raichur passed a resolution on 15/10/2022 to permit selling of vegetables at places such as Nijalingappa nagar, LBS Nagar, M. Veeranna Circle, Jawahar Nagar, ADSMT Layout and also passed a resolution to regulate the markets by imposing cess and taxes as provided in the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (KMC Act for short). Further, pursuant to the resolution, a notification was issued, inviting interested persons to execute the work of collection of taxes and one Shankar Reddy S/o Pampana Gouda was the successful bidder. The markets started functioning smoothly between 4.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. at several places including M. Veeranna Circle without causing any disturbance or nuisance to anyone.

6. The grievance of the appellants is that vide Annexure-F, the Deputy Commissioner, without any regard or respect to the resolutions passed by the CMC, Raichur issued an order to shift the vegetable market from M. Veeranna Circle to Old Osmania Market, without seeking any opinion from the affected parties. Further, in pursuance of the said order at Annexure-F, the Commissioner, CMC, Raichur has issued impugned notices at Annexures-G and H dtd. 18/7/2023.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order and the notices violated the fundamental rights of the appellants and it is issued with malafides at the behest of the powerful cartel in the Old Osmania Market and also at the instance of one N. Mahaveer claiming to be the President of Osmania Tarakari Maratagarara Kshemabhivrudhi Sangha, Raichur.

8. The learned counsel drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure-E, would contend that the CMC, Raichur has issued endorsement refusing to scrap the contract work by stating that the entire process is in accordance with law and therefore, contend that the impugned order and the notices reeks of malafides and the entire illegal exercise is done at the behest of the cartel represented by respondent No.