High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Shiva Traders vs State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Shiva Traders vs State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2009
Author: H N Das
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BLA~:~1GA'LO.R:E" 

DATED THES THE 14"" DAY OF DEC_E¥Y1 _BE.R' f2jOO_9 T' 

BEFOAE  ;, 

THE HON'BLE MR.JuST.1@"GVE% H.N":NAGAM-OH._ANOAS

WRET PET1T'éOj;u NO.3.é6:4.OF.%2009{AA§MC)

BETWEEN: _ '

M/5. SHg1'VA"_TVR'AE'1ERS_V~..___h  V
REPRESE..NT.F  BY' IT.S"P"_RQ
sRLsHAmMuKHA.*.q
S/O: LATE %'L:.A:GAAPFA.LV%*~.__ %
AGED ABOUT' 5'3L_wARs"' _

C-3, A.;_>MC, YA.RD;," _   "
BATAWA-DI;TUMK'L.JR;...J' .,.PETITIONER

FRO:E*T;O'R

L_'j(jé':.v  S . Kf3A\a.A_.9..AM U, ADVOCATE)

   OF KARNATAKA

 REPRESENTED BY ITS
~ gSECRETARY
 DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
BANGALORE -~ 550 00:.

2 THE OIREGTOR OF MARKETENG
NG.1E>, 3" RA}BHi1\VAN ROAD,
BANGALORE --~ 560 001.

C7)\\.w-F"



3 THE SECRETARY

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING'

COMMITTEE, TUE'/EKUR. P,Estao:~'_ijp.ECi\iTS--'fC K V' 

(arsMT:ATTVUAYA,AGAEoRflat§NErR2'2R,,f*h
sat:HTLTHIMMETJMNDA,ApvocATEEoRi{n '.1 ""
va%%% 2 _ _m

THIS VVRYF PETtTM3mCT$_E1LEp'tnMDE§ ARTICLES
226 & 227 oE'THErj3NSTIToTTQNfoE HVDIA PRAYING To
QUASH THE LEAVE'AND*tiCENCE,FEE NCHTCE DATED
pT1o2oo9vnpEANNExoRE¢garTagg3,soT¥u2AsTHE

PETflIONERiSCONCERNEDLQp

T+uEWmEiEPETnj©iiComtmotmtFoR.PREmwuNARY
HEARnu;1m'e'GnQoPn}ns DAY,THE COURTIWADETHE

FOLLOmfiN$§?fi,_~

CTORDER

Sx"ri.._VIRH..K.Ti}irn.nfietj.owda, learned counsel is directed to

'take __not_iCe tor' «R.€.S!3ondent No.3.

A'2.}"2j--:_Sr=nt,A.D.Vi}aya, iearned Additional Government

Audvociate, is directed to take notice for Respondent Nos.1

R*i’&2′

3. In thig writ petition the petitioner has prayed as

underw
(/7L\v’\~

“A) ISSUE Writ in the nature of
Certiorari to quash the Leave and Lic;ye:i*icVe:éy:’VF:e”ei
Notice dated 14/_1o/2.1oo91.”””=–«’fpe’ai%iri-g A
No.Kru.Uma.Sa(Tu)2774/2{){}9;.ftQfjv “‘-soA’hrie§<é_sre._{_ii{V.e__ii'
issued by the Third Respovnidyerit, soT.»'i,'.'e_3;r'A'ag~

petitioner is concernedf

B) Issue Writ Mandamus
dire<:tin9.~.the vresiiondents ".to'V'e§<-ewtute Lease»
cumeS'a'i'e's;jy.t:Aqre.errie~~r{t the valid
con'siVd'erait'i'o'3n_i'nVjyf–._ia~vyot§_r"tots.the petitioner in

ig{e'spe:Cjt ofithre shop' a'!1'o'tted§ to the petitioner.

"ISE5xii_E.'4'rsu'ch"_.»s.other writ/order/direction as
this Hon_'b'le Court may deem fit in the facts and

" 2,.,'t:irc:–umstan"C'e'sV of the case in the interest of

_ and equity."

counsel for the petitioner flied a memo stating

A th’at__Athe petitioner do not press prayer (A). The memo is

‘i.._piaced on record. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby

rejected in so far as prayer §\Jox(Aj».

,;7L\,«-t,/V

respondents seeking conversion of his ieav_e..__and’s.4I’i;en.Ce

status into tease–cum«saIe status as “”p.Vrox%i_nd.eid iwith’«–.,

supporting documents. If sucafi a repvrese~nt.a_ti0_n.’Wis'”given 7.

by the petitioner then the’ssame4Sha’i.!._ be ¢TQns’i’derevci:.’ b’yV’th.e
respondents in aCcordance””tw’:ith iawwandsats eixpeditiousliy
as possibie.

With the.__above”o:§§sie’t\1.3§iVon’.s,..fithis writ petition is
disposed4’of”.i4_’ ‘ i

SN’AAVV;H’}Vi.fTiiTI’E€”LG-Q_W’da, learned Counsel for the
respondent ‘No.V3~.Ai’s:.4i5″e’r”n{i.tted to fiie vai<a§ath within three
in-;jeei~:.s.

1 .,.,_:S!%i’Iif,:V”ijE!’/8, Eearned Additionai Government Advocate

respionidents 1 8: .2 is permitted to fiie memo of

appearance within three weeks.

Sd/ –

IUDGE

Rsk/«