Karnataka High Court
M/S Dayananda Enterprises vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36853-DB
WA No. 24 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2025 (APMC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. DAYANANDA ENTERPRISES,
NO.331, GENERAL MERCHANTS,
DEVARAJA MARKET, MYSURU-570 001.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI DAYANANDA M.V,
SON OF K VASU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
2. SRI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA & COMPANY,
NO.92, DEVARAJA MARKET,
MYSURU 570 001.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI K.S. RAVICHANDRA,
S/O K.S. SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R
Location: HIGH 3. M/S. V.I.P. TRADERS,
COURT OF NO.23, DUPLIN COMPLEX,
KARNATAKA SANTHEPET,
MYSURU-570 001.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI K.S. GIRISH,
S/O K.V. SATHAYANARAYANA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
4. M/S. CHETAK BHANDAR,
NO.354, DEVARAJA MARKET,
SANTHEPET, MYSURU 570 001.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI ASHOK S.P,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36853-DB
WA No. 24 of 2025
HC-KAR
S/O SURYA PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S R RAVIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY,
APMC MARKET YARD,
MYSORE NANJANAGUD -ROAD,
BANDIPALYA, MYSORE 570 025.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING,
NO.16, FIRST FLOOR,
SECOND RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE PRESIDENT,
APMC MARKET YARD,
MYSORE NANJANAGUD - ROAD,
BANDIPALYA, MYSORE -570 025.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE 570 025.
6. MAA ASHAPURI GENERAL STORES,
BNIL 84/5, 'A' BLOCK, APMC YARD,
BANDIPALYA, MYSORE-570 025.
REP. BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O. UKRAMJI.
7. RAJARAM MARKETING CO.,
NO.131/7, DONTHI COMPLEX, 'A' BLOCK,
APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSORE-570 025.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:36853-DB
WA No. 24 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O. RUPRAMJI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1 TO 3 & 5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING
RELIEFs IN THEIR FAVOUR i) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
07.08.2024 ON IA No. II IN WP No. 5356 OF 2022 (GM) PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the
application, IA No.1/2025 is allowed. Delay of 106 days in filing the
appeal is condoned.
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 07.08.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned
Single Judge on IA No.2/2024 in Writ Petition No.5356/2022
[APMC].
3. The said application was filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7
seeking impleadment in the aforementioned writ petition. Their
NC: 2025:KHC:36853-DB
HC-KAR
prayer for impleading was allowed and respondent Nos. 6 and 7
have been directed to be impleaded as respondents to the writ
petition.
4. The learned counsel for appellants submits that they
impugn the order on the ground that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are
not necessary and proper parties to the said writ petition and
therefore, their application for impleading required to be rejected.
5. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention.
6. A plain reading of the writ petition [W.P.No.5356/2022] filed
by the appellants indicates that the appellants had made several
allegations regarding the conduct of the affairs of the Agricultural
Produce Marketing Committee [APMC], at Bandipalya, Mysore.
The appellants had alleged that the sites and shops in the said
market were allotted without following the due process; non
agricultural products have been stored, stocked and sold to the
customers; the said business was essentially a retail business.
Further alleged that certain shop owners had illegally raised
constructions on the sites. Further there were encroachment on the
area which was in the vicinity of the market yard; some shops had
more than 5 to 8 electricity meters and they were sub letting the
NC: 2025:KHC:36853-DB
HC-KAR
shops which were constructed illegally; that the allocations of the
shop area is not fair.
7. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 claim that they are licenced traders
in the said market. Therefore, they have locus to defend the actions
that are instituted by the appellants.
8. The learned Single Judge has exercised discretion in
allowing the said application. Undeniably, the outcome of the writ
petition may adversely affect respondent Nos.6 and 7. Thus, their
right to contest the petition cannot be disputed. The appeal is
unmerited and accordingly, it is dismissed.
9. Pending application is disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
tsn*
