:1:
WP No.65485 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23*" DAY OF OCTOBER
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE DRJUSTICE K,BHAKTHA'VMSALA "' V
WRIT PETITION No.55485/2a00s§ (AEOMDQE O
BETWEEN:
M / s Ashwini Trading
By its Partner __ '_ _
Bhupal Sangappa Bali," ' '-
Age: 55 years, Occ: Busin'esVs,.."_'V'
R/0: Munavalli;_:Tq: S.efLVada;tj;i,.'@*-.V_ - "
...PE'I'ITIONER
Dist: Belgaum". 'jg.-
(By Srif
A N D . V
1. The .VDireeto.r, ' -
Agriculture IVi'ar1§:_e_tiI1g,
. g Rag Bhaxfan Road,
r _VBangg10reV--t536_0 00 1.
2'; Thee
Agriej.1£tu:*e Produce Marketing
Committee, Savadatti,
.. D_ist:'=Be1gaum.
...RESPONDEN'I'S
(~By'Srnt. K.Vidyavathi, Add}. Govt. Advocate for R1
Shri. Ma.11ikarjun.C.Basareddy, Advocate for R2)
WP No.65-485 of 2009
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 227
of the Constitution of lndia praying to quash""~.the
impugned order dated 15.09.2008 so far as it re'l'at'es'to
Plot No.62 in Munavalli sub market yard vide A~nne>__<:ui'e~1
A passed by the 2" respondent; and _.A"direAét-Q"-e
respondents to provide infrastructure in the sub »rnarket” ._
yard Munavalli to enable to the petityionfer t4o”eeonstruct.V
shop and godown. I ” * ‘
This writ petition eonfrpingl”
hearing this day, the Court nradepthe fo_l1oWin_g:”~–;v V
O R D ‘ 0
The petitioner iis._..i:f3efore;pe_eth1.S’~.lCourt praying for
quashing the irnpugnedi.jorder:__dated’.1,§I’5.09.2008 at
AnneX7§iré§iAeA theilrespondents to provide
infrastructure yard, Munavalli to
enable., the petitioner to oonstruct shop-cum–godown.
‘counsel for respondent No.2 submits
the general direction given in Writ Appeal
N5..r:610,/.2o:p7′ (APMC) (N.V.Somashekar Vs. The APMC
00″»-~.i”-»and Others) disposed off on 19.12.,g0O7, a resolution
s 4.,
be passed and thetniaugned order was issued
WP N0.65485 of 2009
to the petitioner stating that the plot allotted to the
petitioner for construction of shop–cum–godo1f;n_:’:isva.s
forfeited on the ground that in spite of ~
period as per the 1ease~cu1n-sale_., not it’
yet put up construction.
3. Learned counsel for fsiibrnits that
respondents have not -proVici_ed;Ve_ infrastructure
so as to put up shop~wc?:i.rn.–g’odoVsrri’v_oprifthe plot which
was allotted, i«.,vin%f:aIvoI.ir_ petitioner. He further
submits’ cas”<':"se,~tihis court has granted
one yeartirne to up'i'con_struction and, therefore, the
present petitio'n rri'ayh?,_5e'diisposed off on identical terms.
.4i"'i'iLeja3¢ned coiinsel for respondent No.2 submits
i'fhaJt_ the13eVpii_isiV.i'V-violation of terms and conditions of the
1ease–o1.1rn–sa}e deed agreement and, therefore, the
impugned order came to be passed and there is no
i iliegaiity or infirmity in t gned order'
WP No.65485 of 2009
construction failing which the impugned order stands
revived.
Granted three weeks time to
appearance by the Additional GQVern’me;1t”A’d5(Qeateford ii”
respondent No.1. ‘
]UDG=Eit