Dismissed

Sri.Renuka Traders v. the Director

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023WP/108272/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Renuka Traders challenging an order directing them to vacate an allotted market site. The court held that existing rules prohibit allotment of more than one godown/shop to a single person in the same market yard.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed directing the petitioner to vacate the site as per rules prohibiting multiple allotments.

Sri.Renuka Traders Vs the Director — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14472 WP No. 108272 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 108272 OF 2015 (APMC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. RENUKA TRADERS, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, ARAVIND S/O. LAXMAN KADAM, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, MRUTHUNJAYA MARKET, DHARWAD.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING DEPARTMENT, II, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶11

THE JOINT DIRECTOR (PLANNING), AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING DEPARTMENT, II, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶12

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶13

THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, MRUTHUNJAYA MARKET, DHARWAD, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R3)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER/LETTER BEARING NO.KruMaE/172/Abhivrudhi3/2003 DATED 30.03.2015, PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXUFRE-S AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14472 WP No. 108272 of 2015

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the action of respondent parties, wherein the petitioner has been directed to vacate the site allotted to it.

¶21

Respondents have directed the petitioner herein

¶22

to vacate their site allotted to it and have refused to convert the leave and licence tenure into a lease cum sale agreement, on the ground, the petitioner is already in possession of another go-downs / shops / plots in the market yard in the same city.

¶23

The same issue was decided by this Court in W.P. No.102613/2015, wherein this Court has held that

¶24

the Rules does not permit allotment of more than one godown / shop / plot in favour of one person. There is no reason why the said decision shall not be made applicable in the present case.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14472 WP No. 108272 of 2015

¶26

For the aforementioned reason, the writ petition is

¶27

hereby dismissed.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

RSH / Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri.Renuka Traders v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Renuka Traders v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S P.C. Guddad and Sons Vs the Joint Director (Planning)

Basappa B Yattinagudda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa S/O Siddappa Hanchinal Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs Shri Shivaputra S/O Halappa Hanchinal

M/S Hln Industries Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Girijaramana Impex Private Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanamappa S/O Nagappa Giddahanamannavar Vs Bhimappa S/O Mallappa Immadi