Dismissed

Sri. B. L. Jagadeesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Oct 2023WA/497/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge appealed against the dismissal of a Writ Petition seeking renewal of a commission agent license. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding that equitable relief was denied due to a three-year payment delay violating statutory limitations under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; no relief granted for license renewal; respondent APMC directed to ensure due payments are made to farmers.

Sri. B. L. Jagadeesh Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37942-DB WA No. 497 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 497 OF 2023 (APMC)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. B. L. JAGADEESH, S/O. LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KENCHAMBA TRADERS, POTATO ONION AND GINGER MERCHANTS AND COMMISSION AGENTS, NO. 191, BLOCK DASANAPURA, SUB-MARKET, BENGALURU-562 162.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SMT. SHILPA RANI., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37942-DB WA No. 497 of 2023

¶18

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NO. 16/11, RAJABHAVANA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE YESHAVANTHAPUR, TUMAKURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2023 PASSED IN WP NO.14746/2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.14746/2021 AS PRAYED FOR AND B)ISSUE DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RENEW THE COMMISSION AGENT LICENSE AS PER APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON 29/09/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND GIVE THE POSSESSION OF THE SHOP NO.191 AT DASANAPURA SUB MARKET, APMC, BENGALURU AS PER THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13/08/2021, THIS HON BLE COURT STAYED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/02/2021 (ANNEXURE-G) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS.

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37942-DB WA No. 497 of 2023

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This intra-Court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 22.02.2023 made in the appellant’s W.P No.14746/2021 (APMC) whereby, his prayer is rejected. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶27

“i. Petition stands dismissed.

¶28

ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to ensure that the due payments by the commission agent are paid to the farmers in terms of 78A of the Act without any failure and also web-host the details of payment made by each of the commission agent to the farmers within a time frame.

¶29

iii. In the event of any application being made by the petitioner for grant of fresh licence, the same shall be considered as per applicable Rules as per the seniority.”

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶31

vehemently argues that the learned Single Judge fell in gross error in making the impugned order inasmuch as petitioner had made payment of due amounts; the licence could have been suspended only for a period of one year

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37942-DB WA No. 497 of 2023

¶33

for violation of Section 78A of the Karnataka Agricultural

¶34

Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 in the event the commission agent fails to make payment to the farmers in terms of Section 78A; this aspect of the matter has not been duly considered by the learned Single Judge. So, she seeks for the setting aside of the impugned order. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 – State opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The first contention as to making of the payment by the appellant is true. However, admittedly the said payment was made post cancellation of the licence with an intent to seek its renewal and for any other reason as rightly

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:37942-DB WA No. 497 of 2023

¶37

discussed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 15. He is also more than justified in denying equitable relief to the appellant in the constitutional jurisdiction because of a delay of 3 years in making payment, at least in some instances, when the statute prescribes a maximum period of 5 days for doing it. Non-payment within the prescribed period necessarily has to result into cancellation of licence.

¶38

The submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the suspension of licence cannot run beyond a period of one year and that for violation of the statutory provision, till the conviction happens the licence could not have been cancelled, is bit difficult to countenance. Both these aspects have been duly dealt with the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order. There is logic and reason and therefore, merely because another view is possible, we cannot grant interference, this being an appeal proceeding. Added, learned Single Judge has directed the respondent - APMC to ensure that due payments are made to the farmers in terms of Section

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:37942-DB WA No. 497 of 2023

¶40

78A. It hardly needs to be stated Indian farmers are always at the mercy of many and they are put to trouble in addition by the quarters that be. Much is not necessary to specify. A commission agent whose culpability is demonstrated from the material on record, does not deserve discretionary relief at the hands of the Writ Court.

¶41

In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Snb,

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri. B. L. Jagadeesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. L. Jagadeesh 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

Sri.Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Express Vs Bangalore Newspaper Employees Union

Smt K T Kamalamma Vs Smt Sashikala Wodeyar

Shri a. Lakshmipathy Vs Smt. Vanditha Sharma

M P Lakshmi Narayana Reddy Vs Sri Ravi

Sri Manjunath Yellappa Timmapur Vs State of Karnataka