Disposed

The Taluka Agricultural Produce v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2024WP/101887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner society challenged an order allotting its fair price shop licence to respondent no.5. Respondents pointed to the appealable remedy under the Karnataka PDS Control Order, 2016. The Court held petitioner must exhaust that remedy and disposed of the petition with liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to exhaust appellate remedy under Clause 17; time spent in this Court to be reckoned for limitation before Appellate Authority.

The Taluka Agricultural Produce Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6352 WP No. 101887 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101887 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE TALUKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NIYAMIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SHRI SHEKHARAGOUDA V. MALIPATIL, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT, R/O. GUMAGERI-583277, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI AVINASH MALIPATIL & SRI HARSHAWARDHANA M. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2024.04.19
11:53:23 +0530

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES CONSUMER BUSINESS, KOPPAL-583231, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶14

THE TAHASHILDAR, KUSHTAGI TALUKA, KUSHTAGI-583277, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6352 WP No. 101887 of 2024

¶16

SHRI MARUTESHWAR KURI AND UNNE UTPADAKARA SAHAKARA SANGHA NI., SHAKHAPUR, R/BY ITS PRESIDENT, SHRI SUKHAMANI S/O. SHANKRAPPA BANDI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOUSE NO.26, WARD NO.1, SHAKHAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583277.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI A.M. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR C/R5)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.AHARA/CR-2/202122 DATED 22/01/2024 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT ALLOTTING THE LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY IN FAVOUR OF 5^TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-ALLOT THE LICENSE TO RUN FAIR PRICE SHOP IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6352 WP No. 101887 of 2024

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶24

a) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order bearing no.Ahara/CR-2/2021-22 dated 22/01/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent allotting the license of the petitioner society in favour of 5^th respondent as per Annexure-A.

¶25

b) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-allot the license to run Fair Price Shop in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

Sri Avinash Malipatil, learned counsel for petitioner s ubmitted that under impugned order, respondent no.2 has issued authorization in favour of respondent no.5 by ignoring claims of petitioner who was also one of applicants.

¶27

Learned AGA appearing for respondents no.1 to 4 on advance notice and Sri A.M. Malipatil, advocate for respondent no.5 would submit that impugned order at Annexure-A is appealable under Clause 17 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and petition filed without exhausting efficacious alternative remedy would not be tenable.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6352 WP No. 101887 of 2024

¶29

Though in reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned order is passed in gross violation of regulation, since impugned order is appealable, petitioner would be required to exhaust alternative remedy available.

¶30

Hence, liberty to exhaust appellate remedy, writ petition stand disposed of. All contentions are kept open.

¶31

Time spent before this Court would be available for reckoning while computing period of limitation before Appellate Authority.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

VMB

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

The Taluka Agricultural Produce v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Taluka Agricultural Produce v. the 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

Shri.Lakkappa S/O Kenchappa Kalasannavar Vs Shri.Basalingappa Shivarayappa Belavi

Shri. Hanamanth S/O Dundappa Metgud Vs Shri. Rudrappa S/O Mallappa Zulapi

Phupindar Singhn Ludhar Alias Pruthvia Singh S/O Santok Singha Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramappa M Doddamani Alias Navi S/O Mallappa Doddamani Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S Vasavi Dall Mill Vs Canara Bank Head Office

Mahaveer S/O Devappa Desai Alias Bellad Vs Mahaveer S/O Devappa Chikkaparappa