IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.200190 OF 2025 (APMC)

BETWEEN:

MOHD. TOUFFIQ S/O MAHEBOOB SAB, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SHOP NO. 7. APMC MARKET YARD, CHITTAPUR-585211.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. V. DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, NO.16, 2^ND RAJBHAVAN, ROAD, P. B. NO. 5309, BANGALORE-01.

3. THE SECRETARY, APMC CHITTAPUR, TQ. CHITTAPUR DIST. KALABURAGI-585211.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1;

SRI. M. SUDHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES / ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.12.2024 BEARING SAM. KRU MA E/ KRU U MA SA/CHI/LE AND LI/695/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 02.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 directing him to vacate the premises. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to consider the applications dated 08.08.2023 and 06.01.2025 and convert his leave and licence to lease cum sale in respect of shop No.7 at APMC yard, Chittapur.

2. The petitioner contends that he was allotted a shop No.7 at APMC yard, Chittapur, for running a petty business in the year 2013. He was punctual in paying the rent. He requested the respondent No.3 to convert the leave and licence granted to him to lease cum sale as provided under Rule 12(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yard) Rules, 2004 (henceforth referred to as ‘Rules, 2004’). As his request was not considered, he filed W.P.No.201386/2022. This Court after considering the contentions of the petitioner, directed the respondent No.3 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, before his representation was considered, the respondent No.3 has issued a notice dated 02.12.2024 calling upon the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the shop. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the said notice and has sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to consider his representation for conversion of leave and licence to that of lease cum sale.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and claimed that even before the request of the petitioner was considered, the respondent No.3 is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the shop premises.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that eviction proceedings was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 and the possession of the shop was taken on 08.01.2025. He also contends that the request of the petitioner for conversion of his leave and licence to lease cum sale was rejected on 05.07.2023 and an appropriate endorsement was issued to the petitioner. He therefore, contends that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, as he has not produced the endorsement issued by the respondent No.3 rejecting his request. Learned counsel has placed on record a copy of the endorsement dated 05.07.2023 as well as the copy of the mahazar dated 08.01.2025 taking possession of the shop in question.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. It appears that the petitioner was allotted a shop in the APMC yard, Chittapur for running a petty business. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been