Allowed

Sri N Manjunatha v. the Agricultural Produce Market Committee

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2024WP/5143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A licensee of an APMC market shop destroyed in a 2000 fire sought allotment of an alternative shop under Articles 226 and 227. The court found the committee's own resolution recommending alternative accommodation sufficient and directed allotment on par with another fire-affected allottee within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to allot an alternative shop per resolution dated 24.02.2021, on terms similar to shop No.69's allotment, within eight weeks.

Sri N Manjunatha Vs the Agricultural Produce Market… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:40190 WP No. 5143 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.5143 OF 2024 (APMC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. N. MANJUNATHA, S/O. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.21, T D LANE,BINNY MILL ROAD, COTTONPET CROSS, BENGALURU-560 053. ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. VIDYA S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A.P.M.C. YARD, YASHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560 022.

¶14

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT A SHOP TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:40190 WP No. 5143 of 2024

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus / direction to the respondent to allot a shop to the petitioner.

¶22

The petitioner asserts that he was allotted temporary shed No.50 in APMC market located at Yeshwanthapur for a period of 11 months, based on the terms and conditions set-forth by the respondent and subsequently the licence of the petitioner was renewed by paying renewal fee. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 had issued licence for the year 1987-88 with new shed No.70 in APMC market for 11 months, the shop bearing shed No.70 met with a fire accident in the year 2000 and he had given a representation to the respondent seeking for an investigation and for reconstruction of the shed No.70 to continue his trade.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40190 WP No. 5143 of 2024

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that they have

¶25

given documents to indicate that he was in possession of the shop No.70, further the petitioner made representation to the respondent, requesting for allotment of shed and commission agent licence, and no orders have been passed on the said representation. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application under the RTI seeking information as to the measure taken by the respondent to address the grievance of the petitioner and he received reply that respondent No.2 in their meeting dated 24.02.2021 has deliberated on the grievance of the petitioner and had decided to allot a shop to the petitioner, which finds place at Annexure-R3 of the petition papers and legal opinion by the APMC advocate with regard to the shop which is marked at Annexure-R5.

¶26

It is the contention of the petitioner despite resolution / recommendation made by the committee to allot alternative shop to the petitioner, the respondent has failed to allot the shop and the representation which is

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:40190 WP No. 5143 of 2024

¶29

submitted by the petitioner along with the requisite documents indicating that the petitioner is entitled for alternative shop as recommended in the resolution, the respondent on one or other pretext calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents which are not relevant, in light of the document produced by the petitioner and in light of the resolution of the committee of respondent No.2 to allot the alternative shop to the petitioner.

¶30

Supporting the statement of objection filed, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent through their notices had called upon the petitioner to submit; 1) Allotment letter allotting the temporary shed 2) Licence copy 3) Agreement entered with the Market committee and 4) Market fee paid details and that the petitioner having not produced any documents sought by the respondent, the respondent has issued an endorsement stating that since the petitioner

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:40190 WP No. 5143 of 2024

¶33

has not submitted the documents sought by the respondent, his request could not be considered.

¶34

Learned counsel further submits that the respondent had passed a resolution on 24.02.2021 considering the fact that the shop No.70 of the petitioner was burnt down along with shop No.69 and the allottee of shop No.69 i.e., M/s B.K.S Enterprises has already been allotted alternate shop No.19/31 in coconut block, and hence this respondent has passed resolution recommending for allotment of shop No.28/31 in coconut block to the petitioner on the licence basis, which would be subject to the approval of the director of the Agricultural

¶35

Produce Market Committee, Bengaluru and that the respondent has sent the proposal to the director for the approval of the allotment of shop, the director vide letter had asked the respondent to produce the allotment letter given to the petitioner for shop No.70 and therefore the request of the petitioner could be considered only if the petitioner could produce the allotment letter pertaining to

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:40190 WP No. 5143 of 2024

¶38

shop No.70 and unless allotment letter is produced the recommendation as deliberated by the respondent could not be considered.

¶39

The petitioner was issued licence for shop No.70 for the year 1987-88 which is marked at Annexure-F, which is not disputed by the respondent, what is contended by the respondent is that it is a licence for one year and it is not an allotment and the petitioner has not produce any document to show that the petitioner was allotted shop No.70 in order to get the benefit of an alternative shop, it is also not in dispute that in shop No.70 there was fire accident in the year 2000, prompting the petitioner to seek accommodation due to the loss of the original premises, the petitioner was directed to produce the allotment letter to support their claim for alternative accommodation which according to the respondent is necessary to substantiate petitioner's claim for alternative accommodation following the fire accident.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:40190 WP No. 5143 of 2024

¶42

The recommendation / resolution letter dated

¶43

24.02.2021 indicates that there was an acknowledgement of the need of the alternative accommodation, the absence of formal allotment letter does not negate the existence of the recommendation, which support the petitioner's claim for alternative recommendation. A potential gap in the regulatory frame work regarding the issuance of formal allotment letters versus the recommendations, the recommendation plays a crucial role in pursuant of alternative accommodation to be provided to the petitioner. As stated by the respondent, the other shop No.69, which had got on fire was provided with leave and licence and on similar terms the petitioner also needs to be provided with the accommodation of alternative shop, in such circumstances, this Court pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

ii. The respondent is directed to allot alternative shop in terms of the resolution dated 24.02.2021 by allotting alternative site in

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:40190 WP No. 5143 of 2024

¶48

similar terms of the allotment/alternative provided to shop No.69, within a period of eight weeks from the date of release of this Order.

¶49

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri N Manjunatha v. the Agricultural Produce Market Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Manjunatha v. the Agricultural Produce Market Committee

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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Sri Mudda Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Smt Radha Vs Deepak

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Abdul Sharief

Smt Radhamma Vs the State of Karnataka