IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT E5AI\"'f'?tAI:,'Q_I:iE
DATED THIS THE 14*" DAYDE DEC-Ef»fl.--F3':E~R '$00.9 "
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.3UsTTI:(;'E,:;-i;.[§:.NAGAMDHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION' 'ND'V;§4§§,§;Qf;:mQO9(APMC)
BETWEEII;I;-I"'_r" I3'
M/3.'?_SATY'ANARA.YANA__I'R_A{)ERS
REPRE-..s'ENTE'D TTS_ PRDPRIETDR
SR1 SUN-'DAR RAJ;
S;/O N . BHA-SKARAIAH
TTAGED A_BOUT'62...Y.'&£ARS
A C-50; .Amc YARD
IBATAV'»/AQI',---TUMKUR. ...PETIT1ONER
(BY SRuii:j_SI.;1'tK.JAYA'RAMU, ADVOCATE)
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COAOPERATION
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
BANGALORE A 560 001,
CL \;¢"x.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING
No.16, 39*" RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
BANGALORE A 560 001.
3 THE SECRETARY V
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE,MA.-RKFETIYYNG.
COMMITTEE,TuMI<uR. ...RESRO,N«DE.LNTSJ*:._
(BY SMT: A.D.\/IIAYA, AGA'-EOR' RI "AND
SRI: H.K.THEMME GOWDA, A[3.\(OC_ATE TOR R3);
.' *::1«_SR "
THIS WRIT PETE.TIOE\I--./IVS 'EILEDUNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227:.vGE_V"fHEl;CO!\JS.«TITU'T1jOVN" OI: INDIA RRAYING TO
QUASH THE i:T§;;uEF\V.E'«AND LIC,E'NC'E"' FEE NOTICE DATED
14.10.2?3O9,.ViUE'-Y._AN'NfEX'URE--/i\,BYTHE R3, SO FAR AS THE
RETITIVONYER CCYNCE'R'NED.
"THIS V\;'YEi*i'fl'A'PE41"--If1:'1O'.N COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING.' IN 'E-'__GRO1.,|~7P THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FSOLLCQI/\fING_A: --" '
ORDER
~f§%I’..-H..K.T%zimmegowda, ieamed Counsel is directed ‘IO
n j tai<e__ITotiCe for Respondent No.3.
W
._.3._
2. Smt.A.D.V§;jaya, learned Additionai Gove__rnment
Advocate, is directed to take notice for Respond:en”t–.tiiios.1
84.2.
under:~–
“A) ISSUE Writ in’ -the Vnatiure ci~r’7;fi,:i1:r.,i_t
Certioraré to quash the’*,t”eave aii.cj”‘c§cen’ce Fee
Notice dated’ bearing
No.Kru.Uma.Sa(Tait)27′?4}*,2:.OG’9}:1.OA _ Anne><ure–A
Qissued'7'tiy_.__tniie Reseondent, so far as the
on e .
the nature of Mandamus
ivvdérecténig”»the_.resporidehts to execute Lease~
Agreement by receiving the vaéid
in favour of the petitioner in
H of the shop aiiotted to the petitioner.
it .. JVQVJESSUE such other writ/order/direction as
this i~ion’b§e Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity.”
/fL’r”W
1/
3. In this writ petition the i:3et:’tioner.:has”-t.orayed”as»4’V–.
The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a rn_eiV§fs”o:44cj’s»ta”ting
that the petitioner do not press prayer (A)3!Ethererhtehinof
placed on record. Accordingiy,:”tAhe”writ._petitio’n_ i:s”~h«erieby»7. it
rejected in so far as prayer No.(l3\«)’_.
4. The lea rnerjx cou.ris”elnt.f§}rVV”:.h’e peti’t’i’on’er contends
that as per Rule Agricultural
Produce Ma.rl<.-etirng of Property in
market short the Ruies) the
petitioneriAi's7eVnt_itl«ec1'«ltd-e_onv_ert the present status of ieave
and licence into Vie.s':ee«»_c'Lin'i–sale after compietion of period
of;S3" _rnon.vths_s'Li'hjer;t to other conditions specified therein.
hot :'in,__disput'e that in the instant case, the petitioner
I almost two decades in the status of ieave
and ii,__:jenc:e.
S. The learned counsei for the petitioner submits
-Tithat the petitioner individually and also through their
Association the Grain fvlerchants Association gave
representation on 2-9-2009 requesting the resp-Q’nd_’en’t–s’ to
convert the present status of leave and licenée
cum–sale. On the other hand, the’
respondents contend that the pAi*ovi’sio’nsto-tithe
not applicable to the petiititfllplier. i’3.€._’tT’l?3VtVV The
petitioner is permitted to igiv-e…’fres–~h’ represe.nt.a’§tion to the
respondents seeking ‘rio.n’vee.rs:’i»o:n his’ leave and licence
status into .-:l’ea_se–§f:t:nfi?s.a§e'”fstattjsz. as provided with
supporting; “If sxuch agrepresentation is given
by the pétlitk-:n_erWtphen”‘t.h_e same shall be considered by the
respoindeiiltsii’nAVa:e’co4rd.a’ri’Ce with law and as expeditiously
as ‘possible. a ”
above observations, this writ petition is
to V
*=’.Sri Thimrne Gowda; learned counsel for the
VV”‘re”spondent No.3 is permitted to file vakalath within three
weeks. :
g \~//’V