High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.T.D.Hanumantharayappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.T.D.Hanumantharayappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2009
Author: H N Das
n¢THErn@%1C0uRT(M:KARNATAKAxnf5AN§AgGQE.

DATED1+usTHE147"DAv(3FDEcE%BERép09T'.,*

BEFORE:TT;'

THE%KMwBm§MRJusTu3:Hm¢mAGAMbaANISAS

wRrrpEnTMmuNogggosofzqowfipmef

BETWEEN:

SR1TilHANUMANTHfiRAYAfiRNTET]*
S/O1DASAPPA -_ S': :2'
AGE£>ABoLn"S3vEAR5»E

WWAWADLfiQMKUQV,_'

...PETITIONER

(svsaé:aKJAygQA$QfADvoCATE}

END:

°TsfATECN?KARNATAKA
=, REPRESENTED BYETS

1~TsECRETARY

DEPARTMENT(3FC©~oPERATMMv

.fhwflJtsToR1EDEnnLD1NG
:BANGALORE«»56oo01.

THE DIRECTOR O?" MARKETING

wcx1e,3"'aA3aHAvAm ROAQ,
BANGALORE-«S60001'

THE SECRETARY
AGRICULTURAL ?RODi}CE MARKETENG
COMfV1ITT'EE,TLJM%K3$i*. ' _  'V V.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS[FI--i__ED UNDER «.AF{F1CLES
226 & 227 OF THE <0R'E.~A Ev R3330 FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCZERNETD'; -. "  

THIS WRIT RET"IT.I'ONr-.C0:IwINOORFOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 50' GRO.LE.P_THISA DA'Y,'.TF'1%§'~ COURT MADE THE
FOLaIOwIN_€S«:-, I  .  

 7[.'vSriRH.K...?7.h%iT'il"fl€gO\.MEa, iearned Cozjnsei is

fi%reCLed"t0 t'a.R e Ifi0r_i':/:e1"f0:~" Respencieni No.3.

'V *2. Sn:-t..,.Rvv.D.\r%jaya, learned Adfiitionai Government

 ciirecteci to Take notice for Respondent N031

” In this; writ petétion the pet:ti0ner has grayed as

V’ ~ fix”/X

“A) ISSUE Writ in the nattate of

Certiorari to quash the Leave and Licei’i’cef;F.eel’

Notice dated 14/19/2009 T’ —

No.Km.Uma.Sa(Tu}2774/2i§i{‘}§~–1¢O A.Vn”nae.>§:;tie»{_A_
issued by the Third Resi)o:iicJent.,*aV so».fa~r:”‘asu

petitioner is concerneti

8) Issue Wri’:t’~~..in of iiimidamiis
directing the i*4eso_’o:i’deit’if’s Lease-
Cum~Sai_e* _Agree’r*nen’t the vaiid
consivdei-éi’;tio’_n ifai/oti°r.._io’xf”‘t-he petitioner in
oi9:tfii’i”e s’i-iop’aiiotii’edV: to the petitioner.
C)” writ/order/direetion as
thisHon”bie””Coi.i’:rt–hfiay deem fit in the facts and
c_ircLirn.stani:es.”-ofv the Case in the interest of

V ; so ge a ‘e’€g£.i ity . ”

V “COUI’iSE3i for the petitioner féied a memo stating

that the:’i_pietitioi1er do not press prayer (A). The memo is

oia~cet;i on record’ Accortiingiy, the writ ;3etiti«::r: is hereby

_ r’e_:_iected in so far as §3i”Ei3/Efi’ i\io.ifA},

at »

-L,/’

4″ “ihe iearned counsel for the petitionegrcongtenés

that as per Rule 12(2) of the Karnata_l<;a'*«',£i\g.r_i:cVi_i;lt4iiral

?roduce Marketing {Regulation of Ai|otifzienAt':'iogf

market yards} Rules, 2004,
petitioner is entitied to convert thevrpregsecugrllsiééirris
and licence into lessee-cuinu§'sa_|'e ,after'coi}on|etifon of period
of 55 months siibjeictftoi oitlwer,:c:o._rioAit':.0_Us soecified therein.
It is not in ciisputev't.h.a:t:–i.n the petitioner
has coiiwpiie-te%;?i'i'ii.a.liiiostiitiiilo the status of leave

a nd lic_ence;_g

The'*leari"i'e__ci"coonsel foi the petitioner submits

that the" petii:i.one.rindividually and also through their

"Asso'cia't–ion t'h'e""'VGrain ¥'v'iert:hants Association gave

on 2–9~2009 requesting the res;}ondents to

A…convVe.rti"i_:iie present status of leave and iicence into lease

cuifliissale. On the other hand, the iearneci counsel for the

it 'i_g_rje'sponcients contend that the provisions of the Ruies are

not applicable to the itietitioner. Be that as it may. The

t:7*i»"v""'"

es}? the’—

petitioner is ;3ermitted to give fresh repres_e’n”tati,’o«.n:_to__th_e

respondents seeking conversion of his_.~ie»ax2je., a–ne«.Aiicenee

status into iease–cem–sale :=.s_tatu.sz§ as ‘.p’ro\{/it1″e__c_1 vw:.;i.r~:’ith ‘

supporting c§oci.imeni:s. Ef sgiChiae.represe:n’tVat:i’o.VnVV
by the petitioner then the shaiEvabeteoviisiitiered by the
respondents in as vexoeditiousiy
as possibie. H 9 i
this writ Detition is
disDias’g«~;.4¢o§;”.’
learned counsel for the

reS§oi’itfe«::it’é”\io.f3 is–._i’i3«er:mitted to fiie vakaiath within three

A . . . . .

learned Atlditioiuaé Government Advocate

.Tf{:4’r res.eiori.iients 1 8: 2 is permitted to file memo of

apgaeiarance within three weei<s.

Sd/~
IUDGE

T Rsk/W