1 \'v'_P,328é§:3l(I)9 IN THE HfGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18"' DAY OF NDVEMBER 2og9_"; BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTJCE H.N.N-AGAMDHEAN_J.DfAS_ ': WRIT PETiTION No:328S5/ée.o9TAR'McEE}'-.9" ». T, BETWEEN: SR:.SHA:v:SuLiNSESHwAR.A ENTE«RRR'rSES, REPRESENTED BYITS _ «. .. PROPRIETOR VENKATESH V E 8/0 NANJAPPA, A AGED 45 YEARS, APMC YARD, SATAwA:Dz,. . A TUMKUR. 5' «pvt % % N % _ ...PETlTfONER (By Sri.N.SDRESNA,'A_dQ.E;*3. AND: 'V 'T _ ,0:-T. KARNAT'A'KA . "REF'.B'HTS'S,ECRETARY, DERARTMEN_TjQE CO-OPERATION, _ MD%LT:AS'ToR.nT;ED BUILDING, RANeAL.0R_E>» 560 001. 2, DTREDTQR or: MARKETTNS, D !$iO.16',~--~2ND RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE » 550 001: "THE SECRETARY _£AGR:cuLTuRAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, TUMKUR. ..RESPONDENTS
€g_;\f.,/\.,
2 w.I>.32II8sIo9
(By Smt.M.C.NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 &
Sri.HtK.TI-IIIVIMEGOWDA, Adv._, FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER’ A-RTICi_E_,S I226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRA'”I’!NG,,T(;T3 CALL F.OR°T__I’IE,.
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS. AND STRIi<E_ DOWN
RULE 10(1)(fl) & (Iv) READ WITH _ SCHEDULE !V.(I~4.)A OF TI-IE"
LEASE–CUI\/I–SALE AGREEI\/IENT__ ""-./\PPEI'JDEID WTHE
KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL "=PRODUCE~._ I"iI-'JIIAR"r;§ETING
(REGULATION OF ALLOTMENT Ol{I'P.RQPERTY'.I.N !\_/EEARKET
YARDS) RULES 2004, IRRATIOPNALI'-.,AIN APPLICABLE,
ARBITRARY AND OPPOSED KARNATAKA
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING_.~_(REGU'LAT!ON) ACT,
'I966 SO FAR PETITIONER
THIS WR!T_'.IPE§?lTEOVNCOIIIIINCIIIONIFOIR HEARING THIS
pm THE COURT IlI_tA£3I~E–ZIP-IE-._EQl;~t.QWl'NG.:;'
L
In thiswrit" peti"tio:hI,C:tIi.e"petitio'rier has prayed for a writ in the
nature ofpocertiorairi to c;uash"'%he"I'forfeiture orders dated 04.12.2008
{issued oyI':'Re'spovndent No".'3"as per Aririexure ~ A canceling the site
ail'o_tteo'I t:he_petitioner and forfeiting the sita! value paid by
__Ihe Deitit§oher..
L 2, “Since the petitioner has failed to put up construction on
Ititei site. allotted to him in terms of the conditions of allotment,
I*I”I’espo_ridents have now issued the forfeiture orders. In identical
IIT*~matters this court in W.P.Nos.14302~306/2009 disposed of on
C7I\_»W
3 w,:>..22xs5/tit;
10.8.2009 set aside the cancellation of site and granted oneyiyearis
time for the petitioner to put up construction in comptia_noe’ _
conditions of allotment.
3′ in terms of the order in w.i=3=.4;\:o%{.tzivsoéesfileraeroei’i_i;e«rfi–i
connected matters, this writ petitionis:V’a.l§owed’,” flfheytoh’ei’tur’errorders
dated 04.12.2008 issued by E3:lespondyenVt:A’!\lo.’3.._as perufitnlnexvure – A is
hereby quashed. Petitioner”‘~i.s”granted’ time to put up
construction. if the construc::.tiorn:..i:s’v one year, the
forfeiture orders :sta.nds””V:revived. Ordered
accordingly. 2′ V 2 i ‘I .2 V
file memo of appearance
for Rt & FtéiwithlnVfourvyeyetrs’froreitoday.
Sri..H.K.Thi’mVmeg.o’wd’a is” permitted to fite vakatath for R3
‘V Wit_hin weeks’ fromfltodayf
rare EUDGE
ea/~