High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Shivakumar Basanagouda Patel vs The Director on 5 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Shivakumar Basanagouda Patel vs The Director on 5 February, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
 V'  __ Bahgalore,

 V'  j{,B'y'TS1ji.  Kumman, Govt. Advocate for R-2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 05% DAY OF' FEBRUARY, 
BEFORE   3

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN JsHAN*1'ANj;»xGé5uDAR" ~ k

WRIT PETITION NO. 80192 QFQU 1'0 (APMC')f'L. '*

BETWEEN:

M / S. Shivakumar Bassai'1go'ud;%;' }3é1"E€g}%, AA  
By its Proprietor,  A    
Basannagouda S./0 MaI':ant:1ago_'»da Patélj
Age: about y'~3at_*s, Qcc; B~'C,1SinéS:S--,.._ 'A
R/0 Shahaplir,  I; .

Dist: Gulbeirga-§"'~»V . .    
  31., V 3 V " "    Petitioner

(By Sria._Y Aafmgatey
AND: " 'V %   T' L
1. The HDi;~e&:m_r, A.'£>.M.(:":"
Raj Bhavanfload, _

2   "
S.hahapL_i1f: 'Dist: Gulbarga.
"  V  Respondents

Ix)

This Writ I3eti’£;ion is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of Encfia praying to quash the
impugned order bearing No. fieiefiiswaaf V[I’?’_)J”[€–rJ~:”d.f3€g:j
837’/2008~O9 dated 03.10.2009. issued bx/pines.

respondent as at Annexu1″e~B to the writ the

interest ofjustioe and equity and etc.

This Writ Petition com:1’ng”‘on_ “for .p’r’e_ii.1jn’inar*§r

hearing this day, the Court. made the foliowing: V
g_R’nE_,s
Petitioner is ailotee R:’siteV._V_vby..ti1e:_Ares§po11dent–

APMC at Shahapurflfiarket the purpose of

construction: to carry on the
business sale basis. subject
to tlrlew allotee shall put up
constrrrotion within one year from the

daie;’ofe_ai1otrr1.yent’; aruithe APMC may extend time for

by a further period of one year in case of

un’forese’e.n epireilmstances. Admittedly, the petitioner

diciwnoii’ the construction on the site within the

pe1’_iod”‘st:ipu1e1ted leading to issue of notices by the

months to eompiete the construction, subject. to certain
conditions and that this petition be disposed off in the

like terms.

4. Sri. S.S. Kurnrnan, iearned eoun_s’ei””-fog-ti

APMC wouid however not dispute faet”that~ order ‘»
dated 18.02.2009 in WP. No, 31-1e?§?i(5;’Q0.O84′”of.___ti:e

learned Single Judge of the £§irCuit~..E’§enC}i’V:’éit.i ‘.’_)hfe11£3watd

extended the I0-e–n_efit construction
by the vvS:9Wn1onths subject to
certain..r:onditio;ns_.__” does not oppose
that this petition is identical to

those in No”. .3i’1.{i7d/2008.

the liightiof the submissions of the iearned

parties and having regard to the

p1ie’a..din_gs the parties, the order dated 18.02.2009 in

Noj 31740/2008 so. Shivappa Vs. The Director

‘AVgri’ti«uit11ra1 Produce Marketing, of the iearned Singie

.uw”‘;7-V

W/’E3r_jE%3i1.ed by {he APMC. It
is made clear that this order ensuresVVt’i:’1 ‘T..

the benefit’ of the pelitiorler only

This petition is accordingly d£sp0s~:%.f;I”::’.Q1F::iz1A f§_:1uE,”‘ V.

aforesaid like terms.

Szi/-5
JUDGE

swk