IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT _
OATEO THIS THE :4" DAY OF OEc.EMII3';;.g' ';fOO.9 " --..
BEFORE;
THE HONBLE MR.JO5TI"C'vE H,.N,NAOAMOHA;\I DAS
WRIT PETITIONA_'NO;.3fi3V87Oé'OF»..2"OO9(APMc)
M/s. sOI«IANiAT'_HA 'TRIAOERS"" 5
RERREISREMIEO .IT5_ 'f§ROP'RIET'O R
Sm, RI;sHI>A.IIAVTa-I,A,--.T% 1 ;
W/O'-:-A'TE, 'DA'E1{A~N E:\;O-RA'IAH
Ac;EOA_B'O_uT 53 "
S-19, ARMC -YARD '
BAjvTAvvAOI,V-TLm;<uR. ..,PET1TIONER
,_('B\? ORI:j'%'E.I";<.3AYVA'RAMu, ADVOCATE)
,._s'T.A.?T'E OF KARNATAKA
.. REPRESENTED av ITS
VSECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
BANGALORE M 560 OO1.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING
No.36, 3*" RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
BANGALORE « 550 OG1.
(%Wx,'--'/V
3 THE SECRETARY
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING "
COMMITTEE, TUIVEKUR. ..._F%E»S.P:ON"E5:ENAT S," A-.
(BY SMT: A.D.\/IJAYA, AGA EORLRI
SRI: H.K.THIiVlME GOWDA, ADVO«CA"-FE, EOR._R3.,'I «. '
A W.
THIS WRIT RETITIoN~--IS_;'--FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE 'CONsT--'II'L,,:T,IO~N.o'E, INDIA PRAYING To
QUASH THE LEAVE AND 't.,ICENCE..,'rE.EE. NOTICE DATED
14.10.2009 VIDE ANA,i.E.xU.REAA..,B\*' THE R3', So FAR AS THE
RETITIONER Is CON{:ER:N_:ED,_ "~J'_:._u
THIS ¥;i'_¢.RIrTr':R_ET'4IiIiRI_O'A:__C'Oi%4_jIN,O ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARINGGROEEP'-T'H1SVD#%Y, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLL;C)\r'i:'~I.['t.',Gi:i~
'In thi.s"»--.v\:rVr'it '§:€t|--tlAOF"! the petitioner has prayer} as
. 'C.r]de_,r¢'-=.M
Writ in the nature Of Writ of
C__erti.0"rari to quash the Leave and Licence Fee
'mpiitice éated IA/I0/2009 bearing
it No.i~<:;re~A
A issued by the Third Respondent, so far as the
petitioner is Concerned.
8) Issue Writ in the nature of
directing the respondents to execVute~..:.L’eAa’s.e–%T
cumvsaie Agreement by:~ire’ceivi&n5g’
consideration in favour of pe’t_it’io.:nerV’
respect of the shop allot-t__ed tditiite petitior};8:F.;’VV Q’:
c) issue such’~~..y_oth_ermyvtirtijt/oirder/direction as
this Hon’bie Courttniayt-d.eem__fi’t facts and
circumstamses ofthe: cases in’. interest of
justice 3._andii’ee:qu.iVt’y.’5_ ” ”
The pettivtioner filed a memo stating
that the «petitio’ri.er._’d’o..:noi…press prayer (A). The memo is
placed ori*record’–. A’Acc”ording|y, the writ petition is hereby
in so fMa’r””a’s’vprayer No.(A).
iearned counsei for the petitioner contends
that” per Rule 12(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural
it Proiciuce Marketing {Regulation of Aiiotment of Property in
__§marl<et yards} Rules, 2084, {for short the Rules) the
petitioner is entiiled to convert {he present status of leave
wix
and licence into lessee~cumAsale after compi_et"io'n.v'o-fl:
of 55 months subject to other conditions~~spefc~i.fVield: t.her;e'inJ"~–.
It is not in dispute that in the :é,{1sta.ntf}ca–se;._'t'h'e''pet.itwl:.evunéer ''
has completed almost two' decades_ {in thel"s'tVatus of leave;
and licence.
3. The learnedV”c’ou”r:sel::’petitioner submits
that the also through their
Association’1″%_««.,tifi:e–‘:1_V_’ Association gave
representa.t’io’n:;o§n”-2¥il¢x2:tjd’9″‘i’eq’uesting the respondents to
conviertohf leave and licence into lease~
cum–sale’;.._VOvnrth_eA’o_tt’i«e-r hand, the learned counsel for the
r_e’sI:pondeVnts c’oi=’ite_nrl that the provisions of the Rules are
‘ to the petitioner. Be that as it may. The
“.petitione–éfj_lsv1’ permitted to give fresh representation to the
respondents seeking conversion of his leave and licence
ist’a.trus into lease~curr2–sale status as provided with
“supporting documents. If SLECH a representation is given
by the petitioner then the sarhe shall be considered by the
i,/
respondents in accordance with law and as;””e~x.p’e.d’itiotzsiy
as possible.
With the above observaiti.ons ;
disposed of.
Sri Thimme’ counsel for the
respondent No.3 is Aper:”n1.itt’e_d :»tL:o”.i”‘iv!e”;Jia-iialath within three
Weeks. H
|ea.ir’ned ‘Advd-it’iona| Government Advocate
for dresporid:e’et”st.:i is permitted to file memo of
appearantev wit~hi:é..Vti’h’reite weeks.
sai-
3UDC-BE
‘Risk/–