The court reaffirmed that compliance with publicity requirements under the allocation rules was sufficient, despite claims of irregularities, leading to the dismissal of the petitions challenging the notification process.

ORDER :

1. Challenging notification bearing no.HaHuMaTha (Vi) KruVuMaSa(Ben)/2036/2024-25 dated 01.03.2025 issued by respondent no.3 at Annexure-B and seeking for direction respondents to issue fresh notification for allotment of shops no.F52, F56 and E32 in Singena Agrahara Sub-Market Yard, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, in accordance with Rule 3 (2), these writ petitions are filed. In W.P.no.27494/2025, an additional prayer for quashing allotment letters dated 18.06.2025 issued by respondent no.3 in favour of respondents no.4, 5 and 6 as per Annexures-H, H1 and H2 respectively is also sought.

2. Sri MR Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Shilpa Rani, advocate for petitioners submitted, petitioners were licence holders/market functionaries in respondent no.3 ('APMC' for short) since many years. On 02.03.2025, APMC got published notification dated 01.03.2025 in Samyuktha Karnataka, Kannada daily newspaper, which was not widely circulated in market area, calling for applications from eligible market functionaries for allotment of shops no.F52, F56 and E32 in APMC.

3. It was submitted, Rule 3 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 ('Rules' for short) mandates that notification calling for allotment of shops was required to be given due publicity by specifying location, number of sites/shops/godowns etc., by stipulating last date for submission of application by affixing copy of notification on notice board of APMC and publication in not less than two Kannada daily newspapers of wide circulation in market area. It was submitted, clause (2) of Circular dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-G) issued by DMA, mandated publication to be in two Kannada Daily Newspapers having wide publication in market area and APMC was required to obtain prior approval from Director, Department of Information and Publicity ('DIP' for short) for publication.

4. It was submitted, publication of notification in Samyuktha Karnataka and Hosa Diganta, newspapers which did not have wide circulation in market area led to most of traders being unaware of notification and thereby preventing them from filing application. It was submitted, fact that only 17 applications were received in a market yard having over thousand market functionaries was indicative of same. Relying upon decision of this Court in Sri Venkatesh v. Sri P. Subbaiah & Anr. ILR 2007 KAR 3912 , it was submitted, this Court had held, word 'daily newspaper' should be understood to mean not only a newspaper which is circulated on all seven days of week, but also should be of repute, published as morning edition. It was further held, publication in evening editions or in newspapers which are not seriously taken, object and purpose of publication would not be served and would end up as an empty formality.

5. It was submitted, APMC has been consistently publishing notifications in Prajavani, Kannada Daily Newspaper and deviated only insofar as impugned notification. Same not only violated legitimate expectation of petitioners, but also indicated collusion between APMC and allottees. It was submitted, in their objection statement, respondents had merely stated that DIP was informed. Thus there was failure to produce material to establish recording of satisfa