IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.6834 OF 2026 (APMC)

BETWEEN:

SRI B.M. SHIVARAJ AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O B.S. MALLESHAPPA, R/AT NO.65, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, NEAR LAXMI TALKIES, VINOBANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577204.

PROPRIETOR AT SRI MALLESHWARA BALEKAI MAND SHIVAMOGGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GOUTHAM M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M REPRESENTED BY ITS Location: HIGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COURT OF CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.

2. THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 2^ND FLOOR, 2^ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.

3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR APMC YARD SAGARA ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

4. THE APMC SHIVAMOGGA BY ITS CHAIRMAN APMC MARKET YARD SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3;

SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN NO. KruMaE/AaBiVi-1/Le&Li/16/2024 (ANNEXURE-A), DATED 14.11.2024, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOTMENT OF SHOP NO. 16 TO THE PETITIONER AND ALSO ISSUE A WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT SHOP NO.5 IN APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA, TO THE PETITIONER.

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 called in question the order dated

14.11.2024 passed by the Director, Agricultural Marketing (respondent No. 2), whereby the earlier allotment of shop No. 5 in favour of the petitioner has been modified and shop No. 16 has been allotted in its place and seeks for consequential relief of restoration of shop No. 5.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The petitioner is a licensed fruit trader operating since 2016-17 in Shivamogga. A notification dated 30.01.2024 was issued for allotment of APMC commercial shop on leave and license basis. The petitioner applied seeking allotment of shop Nos. 6, 7 and 8. Shop No. 5 was initially reserved for Scheduled Tribe category under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (‘Rules, 2004’). As no Scheduled Tribe applicants applied, the shop became available for general category. A seniority list and a resolution recommended allotment to the petitioner. Accordingly, shop No. 5 was allotted to the petitioner on 21.06.2024 by respondent No. 3. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 by order dated 14.11.2024 substituted shop No. 5 with shop No. 16. The petitioner, on the ground that shop No. 16 is unsuitable, gave representation requesting restoration of shop No. 5, having not granted any relief the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned substitution is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner being a licensed trader was validly allotted shop No. 5 pursuant to the resolution and approval of the competent authority. It is submitted that in terms of Rule 17 (2) (ii) of the Rules, 2004, when no application were received from the reserved category, the shops can be allotted to general category applicant. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation and accrued right based on the seniority list, resolution and formal allotment order and that the subsequent substitution of shop No. 5 with shop No. 16 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14. It is submitted that the petitioner is being engaged in the fruit business, requires a shop facing the main road and allotment of shop No. 16 is unsuitable and causes prejudice.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.

4 submits that the initial allotment of shop No. 5 was subject to reservation policy and statutory framework and could not confer any vested right. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Rule 17 (2) (ii) of the Rules, 2004,