Allowed

Vinayak v. Agricultural

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WP/103307/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed arbitrary enhancement of agricultural produce market licence fees contrary to the statutory rate cap. Direction issued to adjust collected excess amount and direct authorities to consider conversion to lease-cum-sale per Rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned fee notices and fee fixation quashed; excess amount to be refunded; direction to adjust dues and consider lease-cum-sale conversion.

Vinayak Vs Agricultural — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 103307 OF 2015 (APMC-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. VINAYAK YALLAPPA HONAGEKAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHOP NO.3/3, APMC GODOWN, APMC MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI-590 009.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAMESH N. MISALE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, BELAGAVI, BY ITS SECRETARY, MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI-590 009.

¶11

THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING, LALABAG, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. B. ANAND SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)

¶14

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.21 12:09:46 +0530

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE CUM ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO.APMC(B)/473/2014-15, DATED 11-06-2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-M, NO.APMC(B)/1194/2014-15, DATED 28.07.2014, VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND NO.APMC(B)/1835/2014-15, DATED 18.12.2014, VIDE ANNEXURE-W, BE PASSED AND THEY BE SET ASIDE; A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED FIXATION OF REVISED FEES OF LEAVE AND LICENSE AS PER ANNEXURE-Q ADOPTING THE VALUE PROPOSED BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VIDE LIST AT ANNEXURE-G SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITION PREMISES SHOP NO.3/1 AT APMC, BELAGAVI; A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT THE PETITION PREMISES SHOP NO.3/1 AT APMC, BELAGAVI, ON THE BASIS OF LEASE CUM SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE MARKET

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶17

VALUE OF THE PETITION PREMISES SHOP NO.3/1 WHICH WAS PREVALENT IN THE YEAR 2010-11, IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the demand notices issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexures-M, R and W calling upon the petitioner to pay enhanced fee. The petitioner is also seeking mandamus against the respondents to allot petition premises bearing Shop No.3/1 on the basis of lease-cum-sale agreement in terms of the market value of the petition premises.

¶20

Brief facts leading the case are that the petitioner was allotted a shop-cum-godown bearing No.3/3 at APMC Yard on 16.05.2001. The lease granted to the petitioner was for a period of 11 months from the date of the agreement, subject to maximum period of 55 months. The petitioner claims that pursuant to allotment of shop No.3/3 by way of lease-cum-agreement, the petitioner has completed the requisite period of 55 months and

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶22

accordingly, applied for allotment of petition premises on lease-cum-sale agreement. This application was submitted on 25.02.2008. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 15.02.2012 has approved the allotment of the godown/shop bearing No.3/3 on lease-cum-sale agreement.

¶23

Petitioner’s grievance is that respondent No.1 instead of implementing the approval for allotment of shop by way of lease-cum-sale agreement, on the contrary, passed resolution No.4 dated 29.09.2013 and thereafter, resolved to enhance the licence fee of the petition premises from Rs.1,680/- to Rs.17,160/-. Respondent No.1 thereafter passed one more resolution No.8(9) on 08.12.2013 and gave effect to the licence fee as resolved on 29.09.2013. It is pursuant to these resolutions, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned notices vide Annexures-M, R and W calling upon the petitioner to pay

¶24

the revised fee at the rate of Rs.17,160/- p.m. from 01.01.2014 to 31.05.2014 within 7 days pending approval

¶25

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶26

of enhanced fee by respondent No.2 or face eviction. Feeling aggrieved by the demand notices, the captioned petition is filed.

¶27

Respondent No.2 on receipt of notice has tendered appearance and filed statement of objections. Respondent No.2 while contesting the petitioner’s claim, however, contended that action of the committee in enhancing the licence fee is strictly in accordance with the Allotment Rules, 2004. Respondent No.2 also contended that as per the directions of respondent No.1, has refixed the guidance value of the godown No.3/3 and the same was fixed at Rs.37,03,389/- as per the Sub-Registrar guidance value of 2014. The same is revised for the year 2017-18 and the value of the godown is assessed at Rs.54,55,000/-. Therefore, respondent No.2 contended that revision of the leave and licence fee is strictly in terms of the Rules, 2004 and the same being policy decision of respondent No.2, the same is not amenable to

¶28

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶29

writ jurisdiction and therefore, judicial review is

¶30

impermissible.

¶31

Respondent No.2 contended that the period of

¶32

lease-cum-licence agreement being for maximum 55 months, the petitioner cannot take shelter under Allotment Rules, 2004 and insist that the authorities have to enhance the licence fee @ 5% for every 33 months. On these set of grounds, respondent No.2 has sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

Respondent No.1 has not chosen to file statement of objections and justifies its actions for having issued demand notices.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶35

The petitioner being a licence commission agent, applied for allotment of shop/godown. The

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶37

respondents accordingly, allotted shop/godown bearing No.3/3 of APMC Yard on the basis of leave and licence on 16.05.2001. The agreement of leave and licence clearly contemplates that licence being monthly renewable for every 11 months, the licencee is entitled for a maximum period of 55 months.

¶38

On 25.02.2008, the petitioner submitted an application addressed to the Chairman/Secretary of respondent No.1 expressing his interest to purchase a shop and therefore, under the said representation, petitioner requested the respondents to convert the leave and licence to lease-cum-sale. Though this application was submitted in 2008, the respondents have not at all acted upon his representation. The petitioner’s case for conversion for lease-cum-sale is also strengthened by the approval granted by respondent No.2 vide order dated 15.02.2012, which is evident from Annexure-F. If these significant details are taken into consideration, Rule 12 (2) of the Allotment Rules, 2004 clearly enables a licencee to

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶40

seek allotment of shop/godown for conversion from leave and licence to lease-cum-sale. Rule 12(2) of Allotment Rules, 2004 clearly provides a mechanism that if a licencee is able to substantiate that he has continued in occupation of shop based on leave and licence for a minimum period of 55 months. It is not in dispute that the petitioner under Rule 13 of Allotment Rules, 2004 has succeeded, being in occupation for a minimum period of 55 months. Therefore, in terms of Rule 12(2) of Allotment Rules, 2004, the petitioner is entitled to seek conversion of leave and licence into lease-cum-sale basis. Respondent No.2 has already approved to consider petitioner’s case for lease-cum-sale.

¶41

Respondent No.1, while keeping this application pending consideration, has issued three demand notices calling upon the petitioner to pay the enhanced/revised licence fees. The impugned demand notices have to satisfy

¶42

that the enhancement/revision was done strictly in accordance with Allotment Rules, 2004. Rule 16(4) of

¶43

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶44

Allotment Rules, 2004 provides that the licence fee shall be liable to be enhanced at the rate of 5% of the licence fee once in 33 months. In petitioner’s case, though the initial licence fee was fixed at Rs.1,680/- it is enhanced to Rs.17,160/-. The revision of the licence fee prima facie is exorbitant and contrary to the Allotment Rules, 2004 and the same is not supported by any justifiable reasons. While Rule 16 of Allotment Rules, 2004 clearly contemplates that the authorities are vested with jurisdiction to enhance the licence fee at the rate of 5% for every 33 months, the revision of licence fee in petitioner’s case is prima facie found to be arbitrary and totally biased. The enhancement of licence fee is erroneously fixed, which is not supported by any Rule or law. The impugned demand notices are also not sustainable as there is clear inaction on the part of respondent No.1 in not considering the petitioner’s request for conversion of leave and licence to lease-cum-sale in terms of Rule 12(2) of the Allotment Rules, 2004.

¶45

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶46

During the course of arguments, learned

¶47

counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner in all has deposited Rs.21,92,524/- as on 2021.

¶48

This Court, on examining the records, is more than satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case to seek conversion of leave and licence to lease-cum-sale. The amount in deposit by the petitioner is under protest. The respondents, however, are entitled to demand enhanced licence fee strictly in terms of Rule 16(4) of Allotment Rules, 2004. This Court has also noticed that the petitioner’s is subjected discrimination, while they have allowed similar allottees to seek for conversion of leave of licence to lease-cum-sale, which is clearly evident from Annexure-D. The petitioner, however, is left out and gross injustice is meted to the petitioner for extraneous consideration, while the approval granted by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-F is given effect to and similarly placed allottees are given benefit of lease-cum-sale.

¶49

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶50

However, the petitioner is denied conversion and this denial is not supported by any valid reasons. Therefore, the amount paid by the petitioner under protest has to be adjusted and respondent No.1 is entitled to levy enhanced licence fees for a period of 55 months strictly in terms of Rule 16(4) of Allotment Rules, 2004. The respondents shall also adjust a sum of Rs.7,04,075/- while considering the petitioner’s case for conversion of leave and licence to lease-cum-sale and after enhancing the licence fee and adjusting Rs.7,04,075/-, the excess amount is bound to be returned by respondent No.1. Though this is a fit case to award interest for highhandedness of respondent No.1, bearing in mind that it would lead to taxing the exchequer, without awarding interest, justice would be meted out, if the respondent No.1 is directed to return the excess amount collected under the garb of enhanced licence fee. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶53

11 -

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶55

ii. The impugned notices issued by respondent

¶56

No.1 vide Annexures-M, R and W dated 11.06.2014, 28.07.2014 and 18.12.2014, respectively, are hereby quashed.

¶57

iii. The impugned fixation of revised fees of leave and licence as per Annexure-Q adopting the value proposed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, vide Annexure-G are hereby quashed.

¶58

iv. Respondent No.1 shall re-fix the enhanced licence fees strictly in terms of Rule 16(4) of the Allotment Rules, 2004 and shall reimburse the excess amount collected after deducting Rs.7,04,075/-.

¶59

v. Respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner strictly in terms of Rule 12(2) of the Allotment Rules, 2004 and also by

¶60

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7792 WP No. 103307 of 2015

¶61

adhering to the observations made by this

¶62

Court.

¶63

vi. This exercise shall be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt

¶64

of certified copy of this order.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

MBS, YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Vinayak v. Agricultural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak v. Agricultural

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

Rudrappa S/O Veerappa Mokashi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Anilkumar S/O. Hanumantarao Gudur Vs the Town Municipal Council

Arihant Industries Vs the Principal Secretary to

Pooja D/O Basappa Gaddeppanavar Vs the Department of Backward Classes Welfare Department

M.Anees S/O M.Vali Basha Vs the Aribtrator Chennai

P Zabiulla S/O P Nabi Sab Vs Namara Bhanu W/O Zabiulla D/O M Abdul Bari