Disposed

M/S Mahaveer Traders v. the Director of Agriculture Marketing

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2022WP/4539/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging forfeiture of bid deposit for non-payment of balance amount. Court grants liberty to file representation for refund of forfeited sum without interest, noting allotment to third party.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to submit representation for refund of initial forfeited bid amount of Rs.31,50,000/- to respondent No.2 within four weeks.

M/S Mahaveer Traders Vs the Director of Agriculture… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4539/2021 (APMC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. MAHAVEER TRADERS NO.342, A-BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSORE-570 024. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI BABATRAM, S/O HOTIRAMJI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI B.R. SATHENAHALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING NO.16, II RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, MARKET YARD, MYSORE-570 024, REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE MARKET COMMITTEE R-2 TO STOP ALLOTMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO.11 MENTIONED IN THE NOTIFICTION DATED 02.02.2021 i.e. SITE BEARING NO.A-271, MEASURING 2730 SQUARE FEET, PUBLISHED THEREIN, AS THE AUCTION PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE SAID SITE AND 25 PERCENT OF THE BID AMOUNT WAS ALREADY DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE MARKET COMMITTEE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner was the successful bidder of the subject site in the auction conducted by the respondents - Committee and as per the auction notice and also APMC Rules, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.31,50,000/-, which is 21% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.1.26 crore. Since the petitioner did not deposit the balance bid amount within the time specified, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject site was cancelled, against which, the petitioner filed WP No.306/2016, this Court by order dated 24.7.2017 directed the respondents - Committee to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner permitting the petitioner to deposit the balance bid amount with 12% interest. Since the petitioner did not come forward to deposit the balance amount along with interest at 12%, a representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected, against which, the petitioner filed WP No.53598/2017, this Court by order dated 30.11.2017 directed the petitioner to deposit the bid amount within 30 days failing which the respondents - Committee was reserved liberty to initiate proceedings for reauctioning of the subject site. The petitioner filed a similar writ

¶21

¶22

petition again before this Court in WP No.4457/2018. The said writ petition was dismissed on 9.2.2018 holding that 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. When things stood thus, the respondents - Committee issued notification for allotment of subject site among other sites through auction in terms of the Allotment Rules. During the pendency of this writ petition, the subject site has been allotted in favour of the third party.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it would suffice that a direction be issued to the respondent - Committee to refund the initial bid amount deposited by the petitioner with interest.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents -

¶25

Committee submits that in the absence of any provision, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶26

It is undisputed that the initial bid amount of Rs.31,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited after the allotment of subject site in favour of the petitioner was

¶27

¶28

cancelled. The subject plot has been allotted in favour of the third party. Hence, no prejudice will be caused, if the request of the petitioner for returning the initial amount deposited by him, which has been forfeited can be considered without interest, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.

¶29

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation for returning the initial bid amount of Rs.31,50,000/- deposited by him, which has been forfeited for non-payment of balance sale consideration within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If such a representation is submitted, the respondent No.2 to consider the same and pass appropriate order within six weeks from thereafter.

¶30

In view of disposal of the writ petition, the pending IAs.I

¶31

and 2 of 2021 do not survive for consideration.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

bkm

M/S Mahaveer Traders v. the Director of Agriculture Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mahaveer Traders v. the Director of Agriculture Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rehaman Vs H B Mohammed

Sri N G Chandregowda Vs State by Saraswathipuram Police Station

J Gnanendra Kumar Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. Ravi Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Meenakumari Vs Sri Siddappa Chandappa

Mr. Achuta Bhat Vs State of Karnataka through