IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD DATED TI-HS THE 21st DAY 01:' AUGUST, 2"1):()9jVf: "' BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE }i..__ST"I_§OPA1i--3_\TA»v 2 " WRIT PETITION No. 647§:'s:_12069--E¢AI!;v£E)V"'*-[T BETWEEN: M /S. I-IALYAL OIL MILS, TRADERS BY ITS PARTNER ' SRLNURESH MALLA-}?PA. AGE: 54 YEARS, Qéi:c:;1:3L1S:1\--*E$;_s' " R/O. RAMADURG, I}1S'Fv;'7%3ELG-AU~M ' T .. 5 ' ' . . PETITIONER (BY SR1. Bfy. s_02\J:A::U}§",'AT:;xf;')-.,___ -- ' AND: E?IfR:':'TCTOA1§'V ..... .. - " «AGRICULTURE MARKETING :RAJ_BH»AV'AN'ROAD ._BA1mA.LQRE';560 001 THE s,.EC1éE;TARY AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE V' AARAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM V " RESPONDENTS
_(B5′; S31 EK. HATTI HCGP FOR R1 AND
E _SRI,,MAHANTESH c. KO’i”I’URSHET’I’AR, ADV., FOR R-2
1′ ‘ (VAKALATH NOT FILED)
.1»
av
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE;’_jIMPutiNED«
ORDER DATED 7’/12/2008 VIDE ANN-A PASSEVDi_i’BY’:T}:IE3
RESPONDENT AND ETC,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FORi’1«PR–E_’.Ll’MINAvRYi:
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE’12*OLLO”w_1N'<I; *
4.-
.__oRDERi.iII
Sri R. K. Hatti, learned’Govt.’Ad:-i?oCaiteIii_’toii ‘accept notice for
respondent No.1. ~Sri-_ Mahant:es11._ii’C’.jA._Kotturshettar, learned
Standing CO1,1I’1SE’~,’£i”ft_iW:_1′..VAPNI_¢ for respondent No.2.
Learned counsel file their memo of appearance /
Vakalath Within. at period ‘OfNf0uI=-Aiifeeks.
2. ‘petitioineris seeking for issue of writ of certiorari to
quash: the 07.02.2002, which is impugned at Annexure
— A aradiaipsoii’forv_v.thei.:”direction as sought in the second prayer. The
case Of the petitioner is that he has been allotted plot No.47 in
Ma”ri<et Yard by the 2nd respondent. By the present
Order dated 07.12.2008, the plot has been forfeited.
it The-raiiegation on which the forfeiture has been made is that the
3
av-
petitioner has not put up construction as per the terms of the
allotment. The same question has already been considerediibyithis
Court in several petitions, more particularly”*iift’—I:WP}
No.61126/2009.
3. Since the petitioner herein is placedil
the petitioner in the said writ petitiouiiysimilar orderis«.._req1.1i.red to- ‘
be made in the present petition as hereiundeir.
4. The forfeiture order,¥_noitiee’ impugned at
Annexure–A shall iatpieriod of 9 months
from this day. ._ Thei’pet.i:tion’e=ri_Tshall apply for sanction of the plan
for shop to be said land within a period of five
weeks utoday” the second respondent –~ Authorities
empowered ztoisarr-.:_tion the plan shall consider the application filed
by the foprsanction of plan in accordance with law within
five weeks. petitioner shall construct the shop as expeditiously
it ipoxssiblegbut not later than the outer limit of six months. it is
i11ad.e”clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a
J
fia-
period of nine months and if the same is not completed, the order
impugned wouid revive.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of, No
order as to costs.
gab