WP N0.65488 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY or OCTOBER BEFORE THE I-ION'BLE DR.JUS'I'ICE K_,B,HAKTHA"ViAfT'SALA ' 'V R WRIT PETITION No.654S8/2%?) (A/Pits/IQ at BETWEEN: M / s Mrutyunjay Traders, Commission Agents V I '~ * By its Proprietor Chandrashekhar Karabas'a:P¥+'5iVa:t 9 ' Devanagavi, Age: .55 years', - Occ: Business,'f?e;/oz I\/funavalli"; Tq: Savadatti;*Dist:';7Be1ga}L1m. ' (By Srr....AB.-.V.SVorn ap:t1re,'4Ac1V0Cate) A N D: V 2 d "t d 1. Tire VDirector," . _____ M . A Agricillttire Marketing, ' _V'Raj Road, 'V 001. 2. A'I"he Sfecretary, AgIicu3_ture Produce Marketing .. Corrxrnittee, Savadatti, " Vgflist: Belgaum. . . PETITIONER . . RESPONDENTS
‘ Smt. K.Vidyavathi, Addl. Govt. Advocate for R1
Shri. Mallfl-;arjun.C.Basareddy, Advocate for R2)
WP No.65488 of 2009
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 81, 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugned order dated 15.09.2008 so far as it reiatesp to
Plot No.6 in Munavaili sub market yard vide Anrieiiut-reg
A passed by the 2nd respondent; and di~re_ct__’e-tjhe
respondents to provide infrastructure in the_.ASub 1
yard Munavalli to enable to the petitionerto’=.co-nstruct”
shop and godown. ‘ ii ” *
This writ petition corninzg 03:1 “fo£’=
hearing this day, the Court made thevfo11owi1’1’g;. ”
The petitioner Viis._z’:ybefore;Vi_Vthig-..iiC’ourt praying for
quashing the impugned.iordersdated”.[.”1’5.09.2008 at
AnneXj;irei¥iA* theiwirespondents to provide
infrastructure yard, Munavaili to
enable. the p”et_iition’er to oonstruct shop-cum–godown.
V counsel for respondent No.2 submits
the general direction given in Writ Appeal
ii”=-‘~___”-».No.161Q}2007 (Am/1c) (N.V.Somashekar Vs. The APMC
rq21dfp.iOthers) disposed off on 19.12.1007 , a resolution
ix ..
Vi to be passed and the impugned order was issued
WP No.65488 of 2009
to the petitioner stating that the plot allotted to the
petitioner for construction of shop–cum–godowng””was
forfeited on the ground that in spite of expiry
period as per the 1ease–cum–sa1e, the
yet put up construction. I _ _ _ _ .
3. Learned counsel forthe petitioner snbmitsii
respondents have not provide’d3″neces.sary ‘i.n_frastriicture
so as to put up shoip’–~e_ums*godoi2§/’nii”on theii”pi’ot which
was allotted in favour He further
subrnits i’ii§:,entic.a1.casesythis court has granted
one year time toiptttiupdicojnstruction and, therefore, the
present petition rnayb.e”d’isposed off on identical terrris.
t’Learned..mco_iinse1 for respondent No.2 submits
thatetherem ‘is°”vio1ation of terms and conditions of the
deed agreement and, therefore, the
‘.Vimp1ig:{ied “order came to be passed and there is no
it ii{fi3iegal.ityHor infirmity in the impugned order.
Ls
WP No.65488 of 2009
5. At the Very outset, it must be mentioned that
the petitioner was not a party to the order dated
19.12.2007 made in N. V.Somashekar’s
View of the general direction given by the K
of this Court, the respondents i
identified the allottees gvho Plizti
construction as per the and V
respondent No.2 order
forfeiting the plot
iere; isi:’:r;;o- In-ateriaI”‘p;aced on record that the
impugned” order passed after affording an
opportunitjfiof petitioner. However, this
dispoisectoif identical writ petitions granting
_one_ put up construction, The petitioner is
also44ientitl.ed}_.for similar relief.
” Iri””.&th’e result, the writ petition is disposed of
one year time frofiay to put up
WP N0.65488 of 2009
: 5 :
Construction failing which the impugned order stands
revived.
Granted three weeks time to file
appearance by the Additional Government _
respondent No. 1 .
I
Kms*