IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.7491 OF 2022 (APMC)

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED ASHPAK HUSSAIN S/O LATE SHEIK MOHAMMED SAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR– MAHESH TRADING CO., ONION MARKET, STALL NO.3 ONION MARKET, DAVANAGERE-577001.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI NAVEEN SHANKAR B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMAKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577001.

2. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, Digitally signed by DAVANAGERE-577001 MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

COURT OF …RESPONDENTS KARNATAKA (BY SRI B.T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R-1;

SRI CHETAN RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DATED 10-03-2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION. 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 legality and validity of the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the allotment of Shop / CAP No.3 in APMC, Davangere, granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled / fortified on the ground of violations of the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (‘Rules, 2004’ for short).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Brief facts:

3. The petitioner claims to be a trader carrying on business under the name Mahesh Trading Company in APMC Yard, Davangere and contends that he was allotted Shop No.3 under lease-cum-sale agreement. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said allotment has been cancelled by respondent No.2 by order dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure-E) without proper consideration of his reply and in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had ceased to be a partner of M.R.B. traders and thereafter, sought allotment independently. It is contended that the authority has not considered this aspect and mechanically passed the impugned order. It is further contended that the cancellation is arbitrary and has been effected without affording sufficient opportunity. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding his partnership in M.R.B. traders and had secured multiple allotments in violation of the Rules. It is contended that the show-cause notice was issued, reply was considered and thereafter, impugned order came to be passed in accordance with law.

6. The petitioner has not placed any material, either in the writ petition or in the application submitted before the authority, to demonstrate that he had ceased to be a partner of M.R.B. traders prior to seeking allotment. On the contrary, Annexure-R7, being the order passed in W.P. No.4898/2013 dated 17.07.2013, discloses that the petitioner himself sought impleadment on the ground that he was a partner of M.R.B. traders. Further, the joint affidavit produced at Annexure-R8 clearly establishes that the petitioner, along with other partners, was carrying on business in the said firm.

7. The impugned order at Annexure-E, discloses that the authority had taken into consideration the earlier allotment, notices issued, reply submitted by the petitioner and the relevant provisions of the Rules 2004, particularly Rule 7 (2) and Rule 21 of Rules, 2004. The authority has categorically recorded a finding that the petitioner had suppressed material facts relating to his earlier allotment and partnership, and thereby secured allotment contrary to the Rules. The ord