Disposed

Hanchinal Primary Agricultural v. the Ministry of Review Authority

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2024WP/101231/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed to quash an order cancelling the petitioner's authorization. The Court held that the maximum tenure of ten years had elapsed and no purpose would be served by continuing the matter, directing respondents to issue a fresh notification.

What did the court decide?

Fresh notification inviting applications directed to be issued within 15 days.

Hanchinal Primary Agricultural Vs the Ministry of… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2386 WP No. 101231 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.101231 OF 2015 (GM-PDS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

HANCHINAL PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HANCHINAL, TQ:SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. R/BY ITS SECRETARY/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI. HANUMANTAPPA BASAPPA HALAKATTI, AGE: ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY/CEO, R/O: HANCHINAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR & SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE MINISTRY OF REVIEW AUTHORITY FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶11

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, BELAGAVI.

¶14

THE TAHASHILDAR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

MYLARAPPA S/O. YELLAPPA NADAKATTI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS R/O: HANCHINAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1-R4; NOTICE TO R5-SERVED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2386 WP No. 101231 of 2015

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE IN ANASA 41 ECA 2008 DATED 09.01.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 i.e, THE COMMISSIONER, IN NO.CRS/MELMANAVI/19/2008-09 (BD) DATED 17.09.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2008 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT i.e, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

a) Issue writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside the Impugned Order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Food & Civil Supplies, Govt. of Karnataka, Bangalore in �� 41 ECA 2008 dated 09.01.2015 Vide Annexure-A, and the order passed by respondent No.2 i.e, the Commissioner, in No.CRS/� � �� /19/2008-09 (BD) dated 17.09.2008 vide Annexure-B and confirm the order dated 16.06.2008 passed by the 3^rd respondent i.e, Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D.

¶24

b) Issue any such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶25

What has been challenged in the present matter is the

¶26

cancellation of the issuance of authorization in favour of

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2386 WP No. 101231 of 2015

¶28

the petitioner in the year 2007 vide order dated 17.09.2008 of the 3^rd respondent.

¶29

The maximum extension that the petitioner could avail of is for a period of two terms or ten years. Ten years having elapsed from the year 2007, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served by continuing with the matter. Hence, respondents are directed to issue fresh notification inviting applications within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

Needless to say that the petitioner is permitted to participate in the said notification, if so interested.

¶31

With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Hanchinal Primary Agricultural v. the Ministry of Review Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanchinal Primary Agricultural v. the Ministry of Review Authority

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

Nagaraj Ganapati Bhat Alias Madguni Vs F M Ganapati Parameshwar Bhat Since Deceased by Lrs.

M/S Kathyayane Electo Mac Vs the Manager

Narpat Mehata S/O Late Sukharaj Mehata Vs the State of Karnataka

Hulleshwar Veerabhadreshwar Devastan Jeeranodhar Vs the Government of Karnataka

Virakthmath @ Gadigeshwarmath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Venkubai W/O Raosaheb Naik Vs Shri. Raosaheb Bhimanaik Naik