1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT APPEAL NO.269/2020 (APMC)

BETWEEN:

M/S. ALI FRUIT AGENCY

C/O. E. ALI JAN AND SONS

SHOP NO.D-20

SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD

BANGALORE

BY ITS PROPRIETRIX

SMT. TARA BEGUM

W/O. E. ALI JAN

AGED 42 YEARS

&APPELLANT

(BY SRI: B.R. SATENAHALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING

11, 16^TH RAJ BHAVAN ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 001

2 . THE SECRETARY

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES SPECIAL

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

SINGENA AGRAHAR SUB-MARKET YARD

BANGALORE - 560 027

3 . M/S. MOHAMMED SAMIULLA AND SONS

A-35, APMC SUB-MARKET YARD

SINGENA AGRAHARA

BANGALORE - 560 099

2

REPRESENTED BY

MOHAMMED SIBAGATHULLA

& RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI: T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2,

SRI: VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1,

SRI: SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

DATED 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED

SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.48326/2017 (APMC) AND

PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT

IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.B R Satenahalli, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Vijaykumar A Patil, learned Additional Government

Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr.T Swaroop, learned counsel for caveator/respondent

No.2.

Mr.Shivakumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

This intra-court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition No.48326 of 2017, by which, the writ petition filed by

the petitioner has been dismissed.

3

2.

When the matter was taken up for hearing,

learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the

pendency of the appeal, the shop in question has been

allotted to respondent No.3. He, therefore, seeks leave of this

Court to withdraw the petition with a liberty to challenge the

allotment made in favour of respondent No.3 during the

pendency of the appeal.

3.

The aforesaid prayer is not opposed by the

learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the

learned counsel for respondent No.3.

4.

In view of the aforesaid subsequent event, the

appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the

appellant to assail the allotment of shop in question in favour

of respondent No.3.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

*bgn/-