IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.8501 OF 2024 (APMC)

BETWEEN:

SUBRAMANYA K.J.

S/O JAGADISH K.S., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKED AS WEIGHMEN, R/AT LAKSHMI NILAYA, E-BLOCK, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE, SHIVAMOGGA-577202 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M BENGALURU-560001.

Location: HIGH COURT OF 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL KARNATAKA MARKETING AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NO.16/11, RAJABHAVANA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

3. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, A P M C YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2;

SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27/02/2024 IN NO.KruMaE/KruUMaSa(Shi)/1641/2023-24, ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the endorsement dated 27.02.2024 issued by respondent No.3-Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of `5,50,356/- on the violation of condition No.3 of the Licensing Agreement, and further informed that, in view of Government circular dated 31.12.2015, no fresh weighmen licence could be issued.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.6227/2023, seeking a direction to respondents to consider the application for renewal of weighmen license, which was allowed and remitted the matter back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. It is submitted that petitioner had filed the affidavit of undertaking as directed and was seeking renewal, not issuance of a fresh licence. Respondent No.3, instead of considering the application for renewal as directed, treated the petitioner’s application as one for a fresh licence, invoked the Government Circular dated 31.12.2015, and raised a fresh demand alleging violation of condition No.3, despite the same having been considered, condoned and closed in the earlier writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-

APMC would seek to justify the endorsement. It is contended that the petitioner had earlier violated condition No.3 of the Licensing Agreement and therefore, the demand of `5,50,356/- has been made. It is submitted that respondent No.3 has acted within jurisdiction and that no interference is required.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. This Court, in W.P. No.6227/2023 preferred by the petitioner, allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s application for renewal of licence and passed the following order:

a. “The petition is hereby allowed.

b. The matter is remitted to the 3^rd respondent for re-consideration afresh of the application for renewal of the weighmen license submitted by the petitioner for the year

2023-2024 in accordance with law;

c. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking before respondent No.3 for the purpose of enabling consideration of his application for renewal of license;

d. Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional pleadings and documents before the 3^rd respondent which shall be considered by the 3^rd respondent in accordance with law;

e. The petitioner is directed to appear before the

3^rd respondent on 12.2.2024 and submit his pleadings and documents including the affidavit o