IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOFCE
DATED THIS THE 10% DAY OF DECEMBER 2Q.1'(j':'V". .
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S;'ABDUL"..NA§§EER
WRIT PETITION Nos.38875%38e3'78}'«éO'10 J{'AP iv1.cV;_ "
BE! WEEN:
1.
APMC Yard, 'C' Block'
Davanagere V '
By its PrDpr§.€to.r _ _ -
Sri. BA. _
Age: 50- " V. 'V »
M / s. B.A. Parames113Xf:*.rapVDai.r313:-EDDD'
M ,1/s. 5[Prak{1as1.1 . 31 «C0. .
Rice Merchazfi-,.»A Yard -
DaV3.r1a-gere V D V
Rep. By 1?!-3 Pf0p'i'iA(3'u.0V'r""*
H_._K. Prérkas}:.:_ "
" 4Age:z49 ye"ar§
_ ' L'iV.l Shankar 8: CD.
j "RiCe»_Me'rr;haD11E, APMC Yard
"Rep. By'j_iié5 Proprietor
"=._H.Cv; 'Ci-.hz:1nkar
Age} 51 years
n ..M/ Sic1d2»11i11geshwa1'a 8: Co.
" ~. _,R1'ce 1VEc:rCh2mt., Chowki Pei:
Davamagere
Rep. By its Proprietor
Sri. Gurupadappa Basappa Aladakaiti
Age: 54 years
[By Sri. Ixmappa P. Panibhate, Adv.)
1. The Secretary V _ V _
Agricultural Produce Marke'i-i.ng,Corr1m--i1leeu
Davanagere . " .
2. The Director V I u
Agricultural l\/larketing ComI,X;lt»{ee_& " -.
Bangalore
(By Smt. A111JP*%IllE1 'Aclvf ¢foI':.'R:V1l"'\' *~ .
Smt. M.C. Nagaslqree-,v'
=:¥b::az5=z<::= .
Thesel'w_1'it filed under Articles 226 and
227 of V1f.1'],€ Cor1_'3';_it"a1i;iL')r1 "of lhdia praying to quash the order
dt.-4. l,]}..20®8 passedby R-1 as per Anrlexures-B1 to B-4 and
****
A ,These. p'<:}.I'i.io11s coming" on for Preliminary I"-fearing this
day, the C-Qur'£."made the foll0w:1ng:--
ORDER
Smt. Anupaina Hegde, learned Advocate, is i ‘
take notice for the 13* respondent 3.1’1d.: »the_41ea2″heei’
c’iireci.ed to take notice for the 2″” 1’esp($’nde–ht’;~
2. The petii’i0r1e1’s were aleioflied Sites at D’ewafiagei4je V
APMC Yard and they were 1’eqL1i1’e€i°t;.QV’hpiit of
shops within the time ¢};f€.,.vvi’espondehfAi Since
the p€tiiiOF}€1’S failed to put eQiisi1ffici;’ieh’ __é–.~bove, the 18%
respondeiit has ;péi:+{s_ed 213.3 o1’aie1″”dgéLie’d»._4V,Vf11.2008 as per
Ar11’1exu1*e:s._A ~ ‘.13~,eb’r4esij’e.cti\r’e1y forfeiting the sites in
question. The*ipetiViii(§’ne.i’e{ ehallenged the Validity of the
_said OI:Fj_§:’€’1; dated as per Amiexures — BW1 to B4 in
3.thes=c.w1-it peiitejbns.
A __f3.Vi lie-:«11f£1 the learned couiisek for the parties.
E
‘;§fi>%§
4. Learned Cousnel for the petii;io11ers submits that the
petitioners could not put up Construction on the said sitesin
accordance with the terms and conditions of the 1easeeeIt:rii.l’
sale agreement due to the reasons beyond their Co«nltrol;._lHe = it
further submits that the petitioners \’l/:illAAMp[l*;L1}”:)’ eortstrttetioii
on the said site in accordance with l’aCc’.–o13dar1C”e._ wi.th
terms and conditions of the lease sale ag1’eeAmven’t:liViti1i1i
a period of one year.
5. The SubHIiSSiOT1″«._(V)::.’lh’€ ?;_earned ‘Counsel for the
petitionerslsljtasffiridfi-Ieas:on.able. identical matters. this
Court has lgran.ied to the petitioners therein to
put up Veoi1si,19tieteVio:iVonA’t_he'”‘sites allotted by the APMC in
laeeordar1c:e–.iwittli the”te’i*rns and conditions of the lease cum
petitioners are also entitled for the
l l– siniilai’orcle1’.”Y]
II1_l.’l1CV1-‘i;’S1.1lt, the writ. pei’it.ions succeed and they are
~ .fif]’A’aeitcirdiiigly…’allowed. The order dated 4.11.2008 as per
E
5
2
1
x
Annexures –» 13-1 to B4 are hereby quashed. The p€UUOI3~f31″_S
are granted one year from today to put up (1011st.ruetihn”-0:11?’
the sites in question in accordance with the JE4″‘!.'”:I”‘I’I’kVSA,,Vt3.VVI’S’d V’
conditions at lease cum saie agreeI11ent”‘fa:i1ing-iswhich-V ‘tibei’t;y
is reserved to the resporidents to take
against the petitioners in acco1*danee~.with Zaw.’ Nd-Vcd’st’s’;’
7. Learried Couiisei tithe respondeiits are
permitted to file their menlgVet’elfipeatrafficefifalsaiath, as the
case may be, withVif1’31.e,iperi6_d ci>f’eigh’t vtie.ek9__fi’0n1 today.