W.P.No.6343f3 OF 2W9
IN THE HIGH COL¥%€'I' OF KARNATAXA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT BHARWAD
DATED THIS THE £013 BAY OF JULY, 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE MORAN sHANrANA;:§:Ou:35i2" T» H
WRIT ?E'1*moN No. 63430 " "
Between: 2 I A 'I u
THE §-IULK€.)'FI 00-0? '
OIL 85 FEESS SOCIETY HULKOTI
R'/BY FPS CHAIRMAN
Sn. H.Y.DESA1GOUDAR GADAG, . _ --
AGE:78 'ms, 000: £3USINI:1SS',~ R/C). C.,'sA[)A_,_G._ PETITIONER
(By suns;¥iA?.§:%1'IK;é§:ga.1§.3:t§i,ss2XI,V.:§mv3 V
And:
1. STATE 0:» KARNATAKA,
~ 'REP. 'BY ITS S--EQ_R_EZLARY,
--. "~--DE'P';:OF'.CO»--OPERA'I'I€)N M.S.BUILDING
. W .. YJRAMBEEEKAR VEEDE
_ "aANr;;A:,cgE¢- 560 001.
2, 7 "fmg béizjaéma OF MA13eKE'I'mc3,
"'«._No.V__£6, :22!» I"-"RAJ BHAVAN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 550 001.
" THE" SECRETARY,
. _ AGRICULTURE PRGDUCE MARKETING
' COMMITTEE, GADAG582 1:31. -...RESPONDEN'I'S
{B3r}Sri.R.K.HA'I°I'I, HCGF, ADV.,F'OR RE 85 R2
8:1'. MAHANTESH KC¥'I"TUI? SHE'I"I'AR, adv. FOR' R3)
W.P.No.634-36 OF 2{}€)9
THIS PE'I'"i'I'§ON IS 'FILED UEIRER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OR
Tm: CONS'£'I'I'U'1'ION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TH§}._REJ£.E
10mm) AND (IV) TO THE KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL P¥€0DU'CE
MARKETING (REGULATOR OF ALLUFMEBFF 012* RReRRRf1-*{.;* in
MARKE1' YARIDSJ RULES 2004 AS IRRATIONAL }lS¥--':.APPLIC§A--§3I;E -
ARBITRARY AND OPPOSED TO KARNATAKA AGRIc:5LTuRAx,
?R'0DUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT 'FASA AS "' 'V
RE'rmoNr:R CONCERNED ONLY vxmz: !§.N'NB3XU«RFA.--A.;
THIS PETITION comma on Rois. PR'ELiMrRA_VR¥.
'ms DAY, THE COURT MADE THE EOLLOWING: * =
ORDER:V
Ofiice objections' Sri 'Mahantesh
Kottur Shetfar, warned to take notice
on behaficif 3.
Court Government Pleader
is direfzted t:cfii"'t:1_}V{ev:a1'0ti(;t=:Viii$L1V' respondant Nos.1 and 2.
petitioner is allotted certain site by
" i,"V"'.__i'€$pOndt?Iif-APMC, Gadag, for the purposes of
VA Tikéfixistxfiigction of shep cum godown far its business purpose
'11' -3:1 APMC yard on lease cum sale basis.
W.P.No.63~<130 OF 2309
3. The 1ease~cum~sa1e ayeement entered:
between the parties clearly reveal that the
consfiuct the shop within one (if V'
allotment. Hewever, if certain
intervene, the APMC shall ext&1 d~.:he '-{:dr§.st1**ué§tion V
for a further period of gas i..Sirit:a_"thsA'pstr1tio§ner who
is allottee of the site didixc}: during the
stipslated igsxfeitme is issued
against the! ::".pr:c'ier of forfeiture is
questioxied
» 'sdvscafs appearing on behalf cf the
Apetifiofimssga4bzpitted%%t:§at the inactisn on the part of the
peti£icne:f"és" si;eitfi1er intentions! nor mala tide, but is
Z _bon;s1"ide facts and circumstance of the case. If
_. , is granted sign; months' time to eonstmct the
it wsuld be conswucting the builciing after
'obtsjxuing sanctioned plan finm the respondent---AP'MC.
“r”*x
W.P.No.6343i} OF 2609
5. Writ petition is opposed by Sri _
Shettar, learned advocate appear§ng’__on _. tize ” =
?
APMC, and the learned £233′
contending that no IeI1ient€;s{“‘–~.,§;:an”A’?/we
petitioner, inasmuch gs it ‘vjoleteti. clause
contained in the _ between the
petitioner and” ‘ the order
relating to under the facts
and eircumste12.ee {cf theeczaset, ‘ ~. . V
6. .__iS that the petitioner has not
eonstgueted “sleep ttnzitvlairl the period of one year or at
in “years stipulated in the lease-cum- sale
Aat”g1’e’ into between the parties. Having
V V’ _ regafd eame, it is clear that the petitioner does not
W H K t11e”‘it1tentien to alienate the property aiietted to it to
3?? paifies. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said
T the intention of the petitioner in not cor1sfi*ueting the
‘ U building was not bona fide. The petitioner does not have
‘?'”‘\.
K
xx
‘W’.?.No.6343{} OF 2909
any intention to alienate the site allotted to it
parties in whatsoever manner. Having ”
totality and facts and ctircumstanoe of
is of the opinion that interest of
petitioner is granted eight mofiittis’ time the V
building as prayed for b3r thettronowing
order is made»
The fori’ei’t1fie- -‘:Vordeg:[1zotiee:«’which is i1np11g1ed in
this; abefeoee for a period of nine
months fro1it1_ “The petitioner shall make an
appfieettiogl Br the plan for the shop to be
the site allotted to it witghm a
from this date. The respondents-
_ APMKE shjali-eoflsider the appiication filed by the petitioner
W H ” for of the plan in accordance with law within
“weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall construct the
Vt eliop on the sites allotted to it, as expeditiously as
t ” possible, but not later than the outer limit of six months
we
W.P.No.63430 OF 2009
from the date of communication of the, _
plan. It is made clear th_at__ if
exercise is not ‘»con_j1pleted.. s§§’ra’j;?r1iif1
a period of nine file.
ixnpugzed in this writ revive
automatically and the he by the APMC.
It is made clear benefit of the
petitioner orglyf ‘V 1;
xconiingly.
e 5′
E
/’§§l SHANTA )
JUDGE