:1:
WP No.65-487 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUS'1'ICE K.BHAKTHAV*AT$}§tA
WRIT PETITION No.6548'_?[2009 {ApMfCg * 0 A
u =
M/S M.B.Bali Traders,
By its ?roprietor
Mallikarjun Balappa Baii,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Bu__f_sines:§,
R/0: Munavalli, Tq: SaVadaf:ti.,cV":'» _
-- T. V"fly.-:PETITIONER
Dist: Belgaum.
(By Srffi Advocate)
1. Tho..Dcire4cto.:rv, ' ~
Agriculture Marketing,
0 _'f<"ai Bfiafievn Road,
' 'B-angai~oi_re--d56O 001.
2.1% se¢rea;y,
Agricft11t1.1re Produce Marketing
Committee, Savadatti,
.. Dist:"'Be1gaum.
...RESPONDENTS
Stnt. K.Vidyavathi, Add}. Govt. Advocate for R1
Shri. Mal1ikarjun.C.Basareddy, Advocate for R2)
WP No.6548’7 of 2009
: 2 :
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 85 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugned order dated 15.09.2008 so far as it reiates to
Plot No.50 in Munavalli sub market yard Vide AnneXure–
A passed by the 2nd respondent; and direct-dthe
respondents to provide infrastructure in the ‘rriarketp
yard Munavalli to enable to the petitioner to{_construe’:._” .
shop and godown. 0′ 0
This writ petition corninygiwon’ ..vfo_r -1
hearing this day, the Court made”=the’_’_foI1oWin’g:_ A
ORIJLIS V i
The petitioner is before’=…_thi.s for
quashing the impugned c–:rderV0i”15.09.2008 at
AnneX?drs;VAe’A~ theibrespondents to provide
infrastructure yard, Munavaili to
enable. the petitioner to oonstruct shop–cum–godown.
‘counsel for respondent No.2 submits
the general direction given in Writ Appeal
(APMC) {N.V.Somashekar Vs. The APMC
Others) disposed off on 19.12.1007, a resolution
it…
to be passed and the i ed order was issued
WP No.65487 of 2009
to the petitioner stating that the plot allotted to the
petitioner for construction of shop-cum-godown____uwas
forfeited on the ground that in spite of expiry of
period as per the 1ease–curn–sale, the V’
yet put up construction.
3. Learned counsel for the ipetijtioner».suhfi2iltsi’ithat.i
respondents have not proVid_eid._necessary_ = i’
so as to put up shop~cum~goldown._._on lthe._Aploit which
was allotted in favotilr’ of petiiitioiner. He further
submits’t’tl1~at”jin iié;i;entieaE- lcas’es’,”this court has granted
one year time to up’i’con_struction and, therefore, the
present petition .rnVayi’3_3e’diisposed off on identical terms.
v_»»’~’,4,_ii’Learned’.c_ounsel for respondent No.2 submits
‘thla’t«..t’nere:’isl'”‘*iIiolation of terms and conditions of the
leaset¥oun1f¥S__alel deed agreement and, therefore, the
liimpugned order came to be passed and there is no
“:ii”il1e-giadity or infirmity in the impugned order.
WP No.65487 of 2009
construction failing which the impugned order stands
revived.
Granted three weeks time to fiie menio”‘e.of
appearance by the Additional Government _
respondent No.1.
Kms*