Karnataka High Court
M/S Poornima vs The Director And Anr on 23 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200685/2018 (APMC)
BETWEEN:
M/s Poornima Enterprises
Rep. by its Proprietor
Sri Sajjal L. Keshava Reddy
S/o S.G.Linga Reddy
Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business
Shop cum Godown No.3
APMC Yard, Manvi
Raichur District.
... Appellant
(By Sri B.V. Jalde, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Director
Agriculture Market Department
II, Raj Bhavn Road
Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Agricultural Produce
Marketing Committee Manvi
Raichur Dist.
By its Secretary-584101.
... Respondents
2
(By Sri Veerangouda Biradar, AGA for R1;
Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, HCGP for R2)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned single
judge in W.P.Nos.206501-206502 of 2014 (APMC) dated 01.08.2018 and
allow the writ petition and etc.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, S.R.Krishna
Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned order
dated 01.08.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.206501-502/2014,
whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed
by the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and
perused the material available on record.
3. The material on record discloses that on
21.01.2010, the respondent No.2-APMC executed lease-cum-
sale agreement in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, on
26.11.2012, the respondent No.1 issued direction to
respondent No.2 to cancel the allotment made to the appellant
on the ground that the appellant did not possess the licence to
carry on business. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued
by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2-APMC passed
resolution dated 03.11.2012 and passed the impugned order
dated 26.11.2012, both of which were assailed by the
appellant before the learned Single Judge.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned Single
Judge by placing reliance upon Rule 7 of the Karnataka
Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of
Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 came to the conclusion
that the appellant did not have a licence as on the date of
allotment and consequently cancelled the allotment made in
favour of the appellant was correct and proper. Under those
circumstances, the learned Single Judge proceeded to
dismiss the petition, aggrieved by which, the appellant is
before this court by way of the present appeal.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions
urged in the petition and referring to the material on record,
learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
had obtained the licence on 20.01.2010 itself prior to the
lease-cum-sale agreement dated 21.01.2010. Since, the
appellant had obtained the licence to carry on business in the
allotted shop and the impugned resolution and orders passed
by the respondent No.2-APMC are illegal and erroneous
inasmuch as the same proceeded on the incorrect premise
that the appellant did not possess a licence to carry on
business. It is also submitted that the finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge that the cancellation of allotment was
correct is also contrary to the material on record, particularly
when the appellant possessed a valid licence even prior to the
execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement in his favour. It is
therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge as well as impugned orders and
resolution passed by the respondent No.2 deserves to be
quashed.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent No.1 and as well as learned counsel
for the respondent No.2 submit that there is no merit in the
appeal and learned Single Judge was fully justified in
dismissing the petition and the impugned order does not
warrant interference by this court in the present appeal.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge will clearly indicate that the learned
Single Judge has failed to consider the undisputed fact that
the appellant possessed a valid licence dated 20.01.2010
which was issued in his favour prior to the execution of the
lease-cum-sale agreement on 21.01.2010 in his faouvr. This
crucial aspect of the matter has not been considered or
appreciated by the learned Single Judge at the time of passing
of the impugned order which proceeds on a factual incorrect
premise that respondent No.2-APMC was justified in canceling
the licence on the ground that the appellant did not possess a
licence as on the date of the lease-cum-sale agreement. The
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well
as the impugned resolution and order passed by the
respondent No.2 being contrary to the material on record and
based on erroneous appreciation of the material on record, we
are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge, the impugned resolution and
order passed by the respondent No.2-APMC deserves to be
quashed.
8. In the result, I pass the following;
ORDER
i) The appeal is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 01.08.2018
passed by the learned Single Judge is
hereby set aside; so also the impugned
resolution dated 03.11.2012 at Annexure-F,
impugned endorsement dated 13/14-11-2014
at Annexure-N and the impugned order
dated 26.11.2012 at Annexure-G are hereby
quashed.
In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A.No.2/2018 does not
survive for consideration, accordingly same is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
