Disposed

M/S Tawakkal Fruits v. the Director

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2023WP/2665/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order directing payment of the balance bid amount for an APMC shop allotment. The Court granted an extension of the payment deadline from 90 to 120 days, allowing interest as per rules, conditioned on cancellation if not paid within the new limit.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to deposit the remaining balance within 120 days, with interest as per Rule 10(1) of the Rules of 2004.

M/S Tawakkal Fruits Vs the Director — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42021 WP No. 2665 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2665 OF 2022 (APMC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S TAWAKKAL FRUITS REPRESENTED BY IT PROPRIETOR, MR. MOHAMMED RAFI, SON OF ABDUL RAHEEM SAB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SHANTHINAGAR, BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, TUMAKURU-572102.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B G., ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIRECTOR

¶13

AGRICULUTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING, NO.16, RAJ BHAVAN, ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

2. THE PRESIDENT

¶15

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, APMC, YARD, BATAWADI, TUMAKURU-572103.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:42021 WP No. 2665 of 2022

¶18

THE SECRETARY

¶19

AGRICULTUAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, APMC YARD, BATAWADI, TUMAKURU-572103.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HGCP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. T.SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 04.11.2021, PASSED BY THE R-3, WHEREIN DIRECTED/DEMANDED THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO PAY THE BALANCE BID AMOUNT OF RS.11,65,000/- WITHIN 90 DAYS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PLIGHT OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-H AS ILLEGAL, CAPRICIOUS, ARBITRARY, MALAFIDE, DISCRIMINATORY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has impugned the third

¶26

respondent’s order dated 04.11.2021 [ Annexure-H ],

¶27

and by this order the third respondent has called upon the petitioner to deposit a total sum of Rs.14,50,000/- within ninety [90] days towards allotment of Shop No.A-Block-10 situated at Antharasanahalli Sub-Division, flower, fruits and vegetable market Sub-Division, Tumakuru.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42021 WP No. 2665 of 2022

¶29

The petitioner, referring to the earlier proceedings, has filed this petition impugning this order essentially contending that he, given his health condition and the lockdown because of COVID-19, was unable to pay such amount and the order dated 04.11.2021 is issued without considering the petitioner’s constraints that are peculiar and specific.

¶30

Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that if reasonable time is granted, the petitioner will pay the allotment price in terms of the order dated 04.11.2021, and he also submits that this Court may pass suitable orders taking note of the fact that the second and third respondents, despite this Court’s interim order dated 07.02.2022 not to take precipitative action insofar as the petitioner’s possession, have locked up the premises and permitted the third persons to use the adjacent space. The learned counsel argues that if the petitioner could use the shop, the respondents

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:42021 WP No. 2665 of 2022

¶33

could not have been permitted the third person to use the temporary space.

¶34

Sri. T. Swaroop, the learned counsel for

¶35

the second respondent, submits that the impugned order is in accordance with the requirement of the Rule 10(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Allotment of Property in Market Yard) Rules, 2004 [for short, ‘ the Rules of 2004’ ]. Sri T. Swaroop argues that the petitioner will get ninety [90] days to pay the amount, and if the petitioner does not pay the amount within such ninety days, further time of sixty days could be granted but subject to payment of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the amount outstanding, but the petitioner has rushed to this Court to avoid this consequence.

¶36

As regards the third persons being

¶37

permitted to operate in the vacant space adjacent to the subject shop, Sri. T.Swaroop submits that, the petitioner can take possession only when appropriate

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42021 WP No. 2665 of 2022

¶39

Lease-cum-Sale Agreement is executed with the simultaneous issuance of Possession Certificate once the allotment price as required under the relevant Rules is paid and because the petitioner admittedly has not paid such amount, he cannot assert any possession.

¶40

The rival submissions are considered. It is

¶41

seen that the petitioner, when the concerned respondents issued publication for auction, has offered a sum of Rs.11,40,000/-, but with the respondents taking action to cancel the offer, the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.No.34256/2018 [APMC]. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has offered a total sum of Rs.14,50,000/- as against the initial offer of Rs.11,40,000/-, and the respondents by the order dated 04.11.2021 have accepted this offer on the condition that he must pay the full amount within ninety [90] days. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42021 WP No. 2665 of 2022

¶43

the third respondent on 23.11.2021 and in this regard it is stated that a Demand Draft dated 23.11.2021 in No.3445012100105 is deposited.

¶44

The petitioner’s request for further time to

¶45

deposit the entire amount viz ., Rs.14,50,000/-, is considered in the peculiarities of the case such as above and the fact that the Rules of 2004 do not contemplate any time beyond the second sixty days; that during the pendency of the writ petition in W.P.No.34256/2018 [APMC], the petitioner has offered a higher price; that the respondents have accepted such offer before the disposal of such writ petition; that the impugned allotment order is a culmination of the afore; that the petitioner has pleaded health reasons and difficulties to commence the business without possession.

¶46

The petitioner, instead of rushing to this

¶47

Court, could have approached the third respondent with suitable request, and only in the peculiarities of

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:42021 WP No. 2665 of 2022

¶49

this case, this Court must permit the petitioner to deposit the entire amount within next One Hundred and Twenty Days [120] days with interest as required under the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the Rules of 2004, and this Court must observe that if the petitioner fails for any reason to deposit this amount within the time now allowed, the allotment is liable to be cancelled and the petitioner would only be entitled to refund of the amount paid without interest.

¶50

The petition therefore stands disposed of

¶51

accordingly.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

M/S Tawakkal Fruits v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tawakkal Fruits 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 Prabuddha Fuel Junction Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

M/S Padmashree Service Station Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

T K Sudhindra Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Jana Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Mr Manoj Narandas Samani

Sri C B Nataraja Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri T v Nagaraj Vs the Additional Commissioner