IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DATED THIS THE 18'? war or? Jtgrgtie:-, 2€)i)éL" % T' ' mg I-ION'BLE MR, M _)su1Tj§3%%'.§'}UvN;1Af:; ' ' '~ " WRIT PETITION 'V BETWEEN 1 SR} 3 K SHASHIDHAR ' s/o.B s KRISHNA..R_A0' ._ .. . " PRO SREEE 'JIJA§YALAKSHMI'--TRAE}«ERS APMC . * xU:§zI"GA.L TU£§.4KL§_R__ V .... A' PETITIONER. (By Sn ) AND _ ._ 1 ,_ . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS .....
V. , 1:>.E.:>ir’c>p’ co OPERATION,
T. ‘Mm;.fI’:.T_sIfoR1E9 BUILDING
“BAN_GfigLORE~1
2-. ::)IR¥jCI’oR or MARKETING
.. NQ16, mm RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
EANGALORE 1
” -3 THE SECRETARY
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
NIARKEIFING COMMITTEE
CHANNAPAWTANA
RESPONDENTS.
(83; Sri H.K. BASAVARAJU, HCGP FOR R1 3:. R2;
SRI H.i{. THIMME GO’WDA,A1f)V. FOR 12.3.)
THIS w.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 ANI)_’._3?.,’?'{}’:§’ we
CONSTITUTEON, PRAYING TO STRIKE DOWN Ri.§__LE'”!.i){_1){fi,I)”=5s
(IV) READ WITH SCHEBULE IV (4) OF THE LEAsE–:c,uIvce-s5LE~
AGREEMENT’ APPENDED TO THE KAMRNATAKf\”AC}I§ICULTURAL»
PRODUCE MARKETING (REc.ULATioN’-on AL.Lo’mEN”r -op:
PROPERTY IN MARKET mess) RUi,ES:-A2Q0«=t,;AS ‘I-12R.#:*1j1omL, ,
IN APPLICABLE, ARBITRARY AND “-_OPPG’:-E’.ED., ‘
KARNATAKA AGR1cUL’rURAL-.___ PRODUCE’-;””;1y1ARKE’I’lE\IC}.
(REGULATION) ACT, 1966. ‘ V. ‘ . ” *
QUASH THE FoRFE;1’rURE– same DA’I”ED..–1§6.09.08 AT
Aemsx-A ISSUED BY TFEf<E'_._'fi?HlRD }??ESs1?'QI\iI)ENT.
THIS PETITION coh!i11§GVo'r_§i s%oR~.éRiE;s,:'M1NARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE.C{:) UR_'1' 1§aADfE»trz–1e..;?QLLe§NiNG:
High Court Government
Pleader accepts' 1§otice"'for4.tespondents 1 and 2. Mr.H.K.
ThiHLT}1€g0W(u{V&,,V1A€ati16(}. is directed to take notice for
'Mre515§$§daéi:z fN¢»?.3. ''''' " 'V
2' . the matter is listed for preliminary
_ with consent, it is taken up for final disposal
-‘:The petitioner claims to be a licence holder under the
Vt ” “provisions of the Karnataka Agricultura} Produce Marketing
(Regulations) Act, 1966. He is dealing with agricultural
produce in T’l1131k11I’ Agicllitmal Produce Market Committee E
)
u the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Yard. It is his case that the lieenee is being renewed from
time to time and the licence is in currency till An
absolute sale deed was also executed in site in
favour of the petitioner on 2.6.1986. of:
sale deed, the petitioner has 3,
the third respondent has ferfeited”*t1ie site, iteitbe
order dated 3.12.2008. Questiierfieg the forfeiture this
Writ petition is filed. ii ‘A i L A it
4. i,:ee;¢iie,k i:e.et1e1′ up, learned counsel
appeariizgl for as well as the respondents
submit the siibjeetiteatter of this Writ petition is covered
V’ ‘-by in a batch of writ petitions, copy of
at Armexure-B.
V -V 5. x in identical matters, the impugied
V’ iiljforteiture order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the
‘ respondent for fresh consideration. In the present
But
hewever, the question of remitting the matter to the third
respondent and directing them to reconsider the ease of the
//-.
fr
petitioner afresh would be an €X€I’CiS€ in in
identica} cases, I have ruled that if some ”
the allottee to put up constfifiofion _ A’
consmmtjon is not put up
order of forfeiture would
order is passed: V’ V’ A V
Petitioner is ‘ to put up
construction. If c:onst1*iL:1c€io:I 1’:–isv.z3ot put: up within one
year the ord§ci”of r¢j:i’ei£i;r’e firofild revived.
Writ Pefiitiono of accordingly.
Sri HCGP is permitted to file
Within four weeks. Sri ELK.
counsel is permitted to fiie power in
VRegi$utry four weeks.
Sd/*-r
7?-Idgé
/
‘eye