Disposed

Sri N Jayaram v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2022WP/3943/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a preliminary hearing on a writ petition seeking quashing of auction notice and orders regarding APMC yard lot allotment. The court noted the auction concluded with successful bidders identified, disposing the petition. A liberty was granted to challenge the allotment in a separate proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of on the preliminary ground that the auction was concluded and allotment made. Liberty reserved to challenge allotment separately.

Sri N Jayaram Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.3943/2022 (APMC)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. N. JAYARAM ALIAS N JAYAKUMAR, S/O NATESH MODALIAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SRI. PUSHPA ARECANUT TRADERS, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

¶9

SRI. M.R.CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O M B RAJASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S A M TRADERS, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

¶10

SRI. S.G.MANJUNATH, S/O S GANGANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA TRADERS, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

¶11

SRI. K.S.DEEPAK, S/O K B SHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S KUDLUR BANGI SHANTHAPPA AND SONS,

¶12

¶13

APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI.CHANDRAKANTH R PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND :

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING COMMITTEE, NO.16, II, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.12.2021 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE – F; QUASH THE IMPUGNED FRESH PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 11.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE – H AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 had filed a memo stating that in pursuance of the impugned auction notice, the auction was conducted on 28.02.2022 and the auction is approved by the competent authority on 25.03.2022 and in pursuance of the same, conditional sale deeds have been executed in favour of the successful bidders and the petitioners who had participated in the said auction were declared as unsuccessful bidders.

¶27

In view of the above, petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of . Liberty is reserved with the petitioners to challenge the allotment of corner sites in favour of the beneficiaries in accordance with law if so applies.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

RKA

Sri N Jayaram v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Jayaram v. State of Karnataka

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

Mr Mohammed Mushtaq G.K Vs the Station of Karnataka Rep by

Smt. Rekha Shetty Vs State by Puttur Town Police

Sri Mahantesha Vs the State by

Sri J a Mahaveer Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri Narayana Naika P Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Spg Systems Vs the Managing Director (Electrical)