The Court emphasized that allotments must honor seniority rules strictly, allowing only applicants for specific sites, thus ensuring legal compliance and fair allocation.

ORAL ORDER

A set of seven petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the Notification dated 22.07.2021 [Annexure-A] issued by the third respondent. The third respondent has issued the impugned Notification allotting certain sites in Block A and Block B of Bandipalya Market Yard, Mysuru. However, the petitioners, except the second and the fourth petitioner, have got the petition at their instance dismissed vide Order dated 18.01.2023, and as such, only these two petitioners who are now mentioned by name in the course of this order prosecute this petition.

2. M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. [the second petitioner] has submitted its application for allotment of a site indicating multiple choice of sites. This petitioner has indicated the site in No.A-316/B as its first choice, the site in No. B-18 as the second choice, the site in No. B-86 as the third choice and the site No. B-104 as the fourth choice. M/s. Ruchi Trading Company [the fourth petitioner], has filed its application for allotment of only the site in No. B-64. The third respondent has allotted sites in terms of Annexure-A based on seniority. M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. is ranked '72' and M/s. Ruchi Trading Company is ranked '58'. The third respondent has allotted the site in No. B-434 to M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. but not a site of its choice. Similarly, the third respondent has allotted to M/s. Ruchi Trading Company the site in No. D-56 which is not its choice.

3. M/s. Ruchi Trading Company’s choice [the site in No. B-64] is allotted to the fifteenth respondent, which is ranked '158' as against M/s. Ruchi Trading Company which is ranked '58'. M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. cannot have any grievance with the allotment of either the site in Nos.A-316/B or B-18 as it is allotted to those who are seniors in the Seniority List, and therefore, its grievance is as against allotment of sites in Nos.B-86 and B-104 to the twelfth and thirteenth respondents who are ranked '102' and '104' respectively below in the Seniority List. The question, therefore, is:

[a] Whether this Court must interfere directing the third respondent to allot to M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co either site in Nos.B-86 or B-104 instead of site in No. B-434, and

[b] Whether the third respondent must be directed to allot to M/s. Ruchi Trading Company’s choice site in No. B-64 instead of D-56.

Sri M. Krishnappa, the learned counsel for these two petitioners, Sri T Swaroop, the learned counsel for the third respondent, Sri D R Rajashekarappa, the learned counsel for the fifteenth respondent, and Sri Abhijit Haranahalli, the learned counsel for the twelfth and thirteenth respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition based on these questions.

4. Sri M Krishnappa submits that M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. should have been granted either site in Nos.B-86 or B-104 in terms of the choice stated in the application because this Entity is ranked much higher than both the twelfth and the thirteenth respondents, and that it would be permissible in terms of the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing [Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yard] Rules, 2004 [for short, ‘the Allotment Rules'] to apply making multiple choices and the allotment must be decided based on the seniority.

5. Sri T Swaroop, the learned counsel for the third respondent, who is supported by Sri Abhijit Haranahalli, submits that in terms of Form No.3 of the Allotment Rules, an applicant must apply for a specific site and has no liberty to submit the application showing choices, especially multiple ch