Allowed

M/S Renuka Pesticides and Fertilizer v. the Director and Anr.

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2020WP/201687/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing respondent authorities to permit a permanent structure in a shop where a lease-cum-sale agreement existed. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within three months while noting specific administrative recommendations.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation within three months noting prior administrative recommendations.

M/S Renuka Pesticides and Fertilizer Vs the Director… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 201687/2019 (APMC)

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Renuka Pesticides & Fertilizer, Shop No. 14, B-Block, Gandhi Gunj, Bidar-585 403 Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri. Rajashekar S/o Channabasappa Kaba, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o House No. 15-3-67 Mrutyunjaya Nagar, Bidar, Dist: Bidar-585403.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Mallanna Reddy, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The Director Agricultural Market Department, No. 16, Rajbhavan Road, Bangalore-560 001.

¶13

The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bidar-584 403 By its Secretary.

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

(By Smt Archana P.Tiwari, AGA for R-1; Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, Adv for R-2)

¶16

¶17

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents authorities to accord the permission to put up the permanent structure of sundry shop, bearing BlockB14, admeasuring East to West 12 feet North to South: 20 fet having total plinth area of 240 Square feet, situated at APMC Market Yard, Gandhi Gunj, Near Budda Mandir, Bidar.

¶18

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Hon’ble Court seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to accord permission to put up permanent structure of sundry shop bearing Block No.B-14.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he was running sundry shop Block No. B-14 measuring East to West 12 feet and North to South 20 feet. It is the

¶22

specific case of the petitioner that the Committee has executed lease cum sale agreement on 04.01.2007 and the same is produced before the Court as per AnnexureA. The respondents have forfeited that shop vide order dated 27.03.2012 on the ground that the terms and conditions of the lease cum sale agreement were not

¶23

¶24

complied by the petitioner by putting up construction in the said allotted portion. The petitioner before this Court is contending that he has submitted detailed representation to the second respondent on 05.05.2012 requesting the concerned authority to recall forfeiture order. The petitioner has also submitted one more representation to the first respondent on 08.08.2014. The petitioner has relied on the order passed by the first respondent dated 12.11.2014 wherein the first respondent directed Secretary to APMC Bidar to take appropriate action in the matter after carrying out the spot inspection and also verifying the records. The petitioner would also rely on recommendation made by Additional Director (Planning) addressed to the Secretary of APMC to take appropriate action in the matter.

¶25

The counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the representation

¶26

¶27

submitted by the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law. Additional Government Advocate appearing for first respondent would submit before the Court that recommendations made by the authorities has to be considered by the second respondent in accordance with law.

¶28

In the light of the recommendations made by the authorities, the respondent/authorities are required to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-F. While considering the representation submitted by the petitioner, the concerned authorities are required to look into the recommendations vide Annexure-B and E.

¶29

With these observations, the Writ Petition is

¶30

allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-F by taking note of recommendations of the authorities vide Annexure-B and E. The representation

¶31

¶32

shall be considered within three months from the date

¶33

of receipt of the order of this Court.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

*MK

M/S Renuka Pesticides and Fertilizer v. the Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Renuka Pesticides and Fertilizer v. the Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kishan Pyari W/O Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Social Citizen Forum Bidar Vs the Chief Secretary and Ors.

M/S Mahatma Gandhi Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Smt.Revati W/O Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Smt Gurubai W/O Mallappa Halli Since Dead by Her Vs Champalal

Sri Sravankumar S/O Lokanath Agarwal Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.