This writ appeal was dismissed. The High Court held that the appellant failed to deposit the balance auction amount despite multiple court directions granting time, finding no reason to interfere with the single judge's order.
The writ appeal stands dismissed; pending interim applications are also dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
WRIT APPEAL NO.974/2018 (APMC)
BETWEEN:
M/S MAHAVEER TRADERS, NO.342, A BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSORE 570 024.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI PADMARAM (NOW REPRESENTING) S/O HOTIRANJI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/A NO.403/2, 1ST FLOOR, A RAMANNA STREET, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE 570 024. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.AMRUTH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
(BY SRI.LAXMINARAYANA, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 9.2.2018 IN WRIT PETITON NO.4457/2018 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND GRANT THE PRAYERS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.4457/2018 AND DIRECTIONS ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J ., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 9.2.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.4457/2018 (M/s Mahaveer Traders vs. The Director of Agricultural Marketing and Another).
3
dated 24.7.2017 has allowed the writ petition after passing the following order:
“4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though I hold that the action of the respondent is in accordance with the provisions and the petitioner has not given any cogent reasons for the delay in depositing the balance amount, however, in view of the fact that this Court in several occasions has directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for allotment of sites by accepting the amount with interest and also the fact that the respondent has complied with those orders, similar direction is to be issued in this petition also. In that view of the matter, and also exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 26th November 2015 made by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders permitting to deposit the remaining amount with 12% interest. Consideration shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. With these observations, petition stands disposed of.”
4
from today or to permit the 1st respondent to auction the site registered in his name. Thereafter this Court would observe that pursuant to order dated 24.7.2017 the petitioner is at liberty to pay the balance with interest as observed in order dated 24.7.2017 passed in W.P.No.306/2016, within 30 days from this day, failing which the 1st and 2nd respondents are at liberty to initiate proceedings for re-auctioning of the same, for failure to pay the balance value consideration.
With such observation, this writ petition is disposed of.”
“2. In fact, this is not the first of the writ petition filed by him. He has already approached this Court on two occasions earlier. On both the occasions, this Court considered his request on humanitarian grounds and orders were passed. Inspite of that he has
5
not complied with the same particularly, the second order dated 30.11.2017 which was passed in WP 53598/2017 wherein time was granted to him to pay the amount in 30 days from that date.
3. The records which are produced by the petitioner would indicate that he has taken a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.62,52,958/- dated 30.11.2017 and thereafter tried to tender the same before the second respondent – Committee, which has rightly refused to receive the same firstly, for the reason that he has not deposited the amount within 30 days which was granted in the aforesaid petition and secondly, the entire amount of Rs.1,21,52,958/- is not covered under the Demand Draft offered by him. The amount he tried to deposit is roughly to an extent of 50% of the total amount due. Therefore, this Court would observe that the petitioner not having capacity to pay the required amount has secured allotment of the said site No.271 ‘A’ Block in APMC yard, Mysuru. Thereafter, in the guise of protecting his right, time and again, has been knocking the doors of the court and wasting its time in securing orders and not complying with the same.
Therefore, the present petition, which is third in the series, does not deserve consideration at the hands of this Court.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that it is open for the second respondent – Committee either to allot said site to some third-party or to some eligible member in accordance with law.”
6
7
With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Pending IAs, if any, also stand dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
nd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal filed by the aggrieved bidder deserves interference to secure allotment of the site.
Whether the lower court was justified in dismissing the petition due to the appellant's failure to pay the balance auction amount.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Mahaveer Traders
The Director of Agricultural Marketing
The Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee
Satish Chandra Sharma
V. Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court