Where a court mandatorily directs an authority to reconsider an application for licence renewal after accepting an undertaking from the aggrieved party, the authority is precluded from rejecting the application on grounds that have already been considered and settled by the previous judicial order.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee [APMC], has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8501/2024 [APMC].

2. The third respondent (writ petitioner) had filed the said petition impugning an endorsement dated 27.02.2024, whereby the APMC had imposed conditions for considering his application for renewal of the Weighman Licence [Licence], and further stated that no fresh Weighman Licence could be issued in view of the Government Circular dated 31.12.2025. The third respondent's request for renewal of licence was rejected on the ground that he had violated condition No.3 of the licence agreement letter, by simultaneously taking up employment with a security agency while holding the licence. The learned Single Judge found that the said issue was considered in an earlier round of litigation [W.P.No.6227/2023 (APMC)] and directions were issued to accept an unconditional apology or undertaking that the writ petitioner shall not pursue any other employment. Thus, the ground that the third respondent was simultaneously pursuing two employment could not be considered as a ground for rejection of his request for renewal of the licence.

3. The APMC contends that the issue was not concluded in the earlier round of litigation and therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in proceeding on the said basis.

4. The controversy in the present appeal arose in context of the following facts:

4.1 The third respondent held the licence issued under Rule 79 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development ) Rules, 1968 [the Rules] from the year 2010-2011 to 2021-22. During the said period, he worked as a weighman at the APMC yard.

4.2 On 02.03.2022, the third respondent filed an application for renewal of his licence along with the requisite fee. This application was made as the licence would expire on 31.03.2022. While the third respondent's application for renewal was pending, a complaint was received from an ex weighman alleging that the third respondent was also employed with Bhadratha Security Agency (the name of the Security agency is mentioned as M/s. Novel Security Services in the earlier proceedings), while he was employed as a weighman with APMC, which was not permissible. In view of the aforesaid complaint, the APMC decided to conduct an enquiry and called upon the third respondent to explain his dual employment.

4.3 Immediately upon being called to respond, the third respondent accepted that he had been employed as a security guard with Bhadratha Security Agency from 2017 to March 2022. During this period, he also held the licence. Admittedly, he was receiving a salary and other benefits from Bhadratha Security Agency as well as income from his work as a weighman. It is pertinent to note that the third respondent also tendered his apology for violating the licence conditions.

4.4 Considering that the third respondent had violated the terms and conditions of the licence, the APMC passed an order dated 26.05.2022 rejecting the third respondent’s request for renewal of the licence. This was communicated to the third respondent in a letter dated 31.05.2022, and the application fee was refunded.

4.5 The third respondent appealed the said decision before the second respondent [Director, APMC]. However, the said appeal was also dismissed by an order dated 30.01.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent filed the writ petition being W.P.No.6227/2023 in this Court. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 23.01.2024 and the matter was remitted