Dismissed

The Bengaluru Garlic Merchants Association v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024WP/5452/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Traders' associations challenged the Government order shifting regulated marketing of onion, potato, garlic and ginger from Yeshwantpur to the Dasanapura sub-market yard and the relaxation of Rule 7(2) permitting dual shop allotment. The High Court upheld both, noting earlier challenges had attained finality and sufficient shops existed, while directing proportional allotment.

What did the court decide?

None to petitioners; APMC directed to allot shops at Dasanapura commensurate with existing Yeshwantpur holdings, including vacated/expired-licence shops.

The Bengaluru Garlic Merchants Association Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 5452 OF 2023

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5455 OF 2023 (APMC)

¶8

IN W.P.NO.5452 OF 2023:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE BENGALURU GARLIC MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.81/2 1^ST FLOOR, III MAIN ROAD APMC YARD, YESHWANTHAPUR BENGALURU - 560 022 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. DEEPAK J. SHAH KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S. KOHINOOR TRADING CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ABDUL KARIM (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶13

M/S. SAURASHTRA TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ARPIT T. KANANI (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶14

M/S. KARANIA AND COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER NILESH G. SHAH

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶16

(REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶17

M/S. GUJARAT TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MOHAMMED ZUBER (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶18

M/S. SRI SAI SHAKTHI AGENCIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHAKTI B. VORA (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶19

M/S. GARLIC TRADING CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER R. MOHAN (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶20

M/S. AKBAR TRADING CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER AKBAR JIKAR BHATHARA (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶21

M/S. THAJAYANTILAL AND SONS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER RAJESH J. SONA (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶22

M/S. PATEL GARLIC’S REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER JIGNESH PATEL (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶23

M/S. J. K. TRADING CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶25

KARTIK HASMUKH SUMARIA (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶26

M/S. SRI SAI BRUNDAVANA TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER PARVATHAMMA (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶27

M/S. HAROON ABDUL KARIM AND CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER AMIR S. (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶28

M/S. SURAJ TRADING CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER HUSSAIN ISMAIL (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶29

M/S. SONA TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER DHEER SONA (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶30

[PETITIONER’S 2 TO 15 ARE HAVING THEIR SHOPS AT A. P. M. C. YARD YESHWANTHPUR]

¶31

…PETITIONERS

¶32

(BY SRI SUBBA REDDY K. N. ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION MULTISTORIED BUILDING

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶36

Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶37

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MULTISTORIED BUILDING Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶38

THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MARKETING RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶39

THE CHAIRMAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE YESHWANTHPURA

¶40

BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶41

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HEMALATA, A.G.A. FOR R-1 TO R-3 & R-5; SRI.JAYAKUMAR.S. PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5)

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 BEARING NO.CO 292 MRE 2022 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶44

IN W.P.NO.5455 OF 2023:

¶45

BETWEEN:

¶46

THE BANGALORE ALLUGADDEMATHU EERULLI VARTHAKARA SANGHA[R]

¶47

- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶48

NO.220/1, 7^TH CROSS APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU - 22 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. RAVISHANKAR THE MYSORE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, NO.17 OF 1960

¶49

M/S. H. M. BYAPPA REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI B. VITTALPRASAD NO.11/13, NEAR M. G. COMPLEX APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶50

SRI BHARATHI AND CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI S. DHANASHEKAR NO.24/1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶51

NATIONAL TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI ZAKIR HUSSAIN BAIG NO.03, SOMESHWARA GATE APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶52

M/S. ANIL TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI Y. B. BASAVARAJU NO.12/3, 4^TH MAIN ROAD APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶53

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶54

SRI MALLESHWARA STORES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. M. S. ANAND KUMAR G. S. 2/17, B BLOCK, 3^RD MAIN ROAD APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶55

CHANDRU SAPTHAGIRI TRADING CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI N. MUNIRAJU NO.748/A, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, B BLOCK, B. D. A. LAND APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 (REPRESENTED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶56

B. K. S. ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI M. SRINIVAS NO.19/31, COCONUT COMPLEX APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶57

M/S. ABDUL KAREEM KHAN REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI TANVEER KHAN NO.44, 2^ND MAIN ROAD APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶58

ANAND TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI A. S. ANANDAPPA NO.228/1, 7^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶60

SHREE GAJANANA TRADING CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI M. S. GOVIND RAJ NO.85, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022. (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶61

SHREE DANAMMA DEVI TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI Y. K. KRISHNE GOWDA NO.52/2, 2^ND MAIN APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶62

R. B. LINGARADHYA & CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI S. AYYANARSAMY NO.42/35, 7^TH CROSS, APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022. (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶63

M. DODDARAMAIAH & SON’S REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI D. MUNIYAPPA NO.18/22, APMC YARD YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶64

SRI ANNADANESHWARA TRADING CO. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI M. SURESH NO.24/2, 2^ND MAIN APMC YARD,

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶66

YESHWANTPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶67

M/S. SRI VENKATESA TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI J. A. PADMANABHAN NO.46/44, 9^TH GATE, POTATO & ONION COMPLEX APMC YARD, YESHWANTPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶68

SIR UMASHANKAR TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI B. NARAYANAPPA NO.13/31, COCONUT COMPLEX APMC YARD, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932)

¶69

…PETITIONERS

¶70

(BY SRI SUBBA REDDY K. N., ADVOCATE)

¶71

AND:

¶72

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶73

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶74

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶75

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶76

THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MARKETING RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶77

THE CHAIRMAN AGRICULTURAL PROCEDURE MARKETING COMMITTEE YESHWANTPUR BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶78

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU - 560 022.

¶79

…RESPONDENTS

¶80

(BY SMT. HEMALATA, A.G.A., FOR R-1 TO R-3 & R-5; SRI.JAYAKUMAR.S. PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 AND R-5)

¶81

¶82

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.08.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶83

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶84

10 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶86

CAV ORDER

¶87

The Bengaluru Garlic Merchants Association along with 14 of its members have filed W.P. No.5452/2023, while the Bengaluru Allugadde Mathu Eerulli Varthakara Sanga along with 16 of its members have filed W.P. No.5455/2023.

¶88

In both these Writ Petitions, they have challenged the Government order dated 17.01.2023 by which the Government had decided to allot 266 shops to the existing onion, potato, garlic and ginger traders at Dasanapura market yard by relaxing Rule 7(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (“ the 2004 Rules ”) which barred the allotment of a shop to an existing licensed market functionary who was already allotted a shop.

¶89

They also seek to challenge the Notification that has been issued under Section 6(3) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation &

¶90

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶91

Development) Act, 1966 (“ the 1966 Act ”) by which the regulated marketing of onion, potato, garlic and ginger have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the Yeshwantpur market yard and which directed its regulated marketing only to Dasanapura sub-market yard.

¶92

By way of an amendment, they are also seeking a declaration that shifting of the regulated market for onion, potato, garlic and ginger from Yeshwantpur was illegal and ultra vires to the proviso of Section 6(2) of the 1966 Act.

¶93

A declaration has also been sought that shifting of the regulating marketing of the above agricultural produce from Yeshwantpur to Dasanapura — which involved allotment of smaller shops to the petitioners, who had bigger shops — was

¶94

discriminatory and the conversion of a parking lot to shops in the Dasanapura sub-market yard was illegal and in contravention of the Act.

¶95

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶96

The following facts are not in dispute.

¶97

On 01.06.1955, the Government in exercise of its power under the then existing Section 4 of the Mysore Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 declared the area within the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the city of Bangalore to be a market established for the agricultural produce mentioned in the said notification with effect from 20.05.1955.

¶98

On 07.12.1968, a notification was issued under Section 6(2) of the Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 declaring the locality known as ‘New Tharagupet’, ‘Old Tharagupet’ and ‘City Market’ to be the market yard for the regulated marketing of the notified agricultural produce in respect of the market area of the APMC.

¶99

On 13.11.1975, the Government in exercise of its power under Section 6(3) of the 1966 Act and in supersession of the earlier Notification dated

¶100

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶101

07.12.1968 declared the locality specified in the schedule therein to be the market yard in view of the existing market yard. The locality specified was in extent of 38 acres 9 guntas on Yeshwanthpur – Tumkur Road (“ Yeshwantpur yard ”).

¶102

In this Yeshwantpur yard, by the issuance of several notifications, the regulated marketing of several items of agricultural produce was declared including the agricultural produce of onion, garlic, potato and ginger and their regulated marketing was undertaken in the Yeshwanthpur yard.

¶103

On 07.10.2009, a Notification was issued under Section 6(2) of the 1966 Act declaring that an area measuring 67.25 acres in Vaderahalli village (hereinafter referred to as “ the Dasanapura submarket yard ”) would be the sub-market yard for the regulated marketing of the agricultural produce of potato and garlic.

¶104

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶105

It may also be pertinent to state here that in the year 2013, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short, “ the APMC ”) had invited application for allotment of shops on leave-cumlicense basis in the sub-market yard in the Dasanapura area. This notification became the subject matter of the challenge before this Court in

¶106

W.P. No.7389-85/2013.

¶107

This Court, after hearing the parties, by its order dated 27.02.2013 came to the conclusion that the notification dated 07.02.2009 for establishing the sub-market yard at Dasanapura had been issued, an extent of 67.25 acres had been acquired and more than 100 crore rupees had been invested and godowns had also been constructed and therefore the writ petitions challenging the Notification calling for applications for allotment of shops could not be entertained. This Court taking note of the grievance of the petitioner therein observed that they had

¶108

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶109

already given a representation, which were required to be considered by the authorities.

¶110

During the pendency of W.P. No. 7389-85/2013, the notification dated 07.10.2009 — which declared the sub-market at Dasanapura for regulating the agricultural produce of potato and garlic — came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. Nos.3525135379/2013 and connected matters.

¶111

This Court by an order dated 16.09.2013 taking note of the order passed in W.P. Nos.7389-7658/2013 came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners upheld the Notification and consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition.

¶112

This Court, however, observed that it would be open for the petitioners therein to seek other remedies which were given to them while disposing of W.P. Nos.7389-7658/2013, i.e., to enforce the direction

¶113

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶114

issued to the respondents to consider the

¶115

representation.

¶116

Thus, the challenge to the declaration of Dasanapura sub-market and also the challenge to the notification issued calling for applications for allotment of shops was repelled by this Court and the said orders have attained finality.

¶117

On 28.09.2013, a notification was issued rescinding the earlier notification dated 07.10.2009, whereby the Dasanapura sub-market had been declared as the sub-market yard for the regulated marketing of potato and onion, and the regulated marketing of 89 items including Onion, Potato, Garlic and Ginger was notified. As a consequence, both at the Yeshwanthpur market yard and the Dasanapura submarket yard, the regulated marketing of onion, garlic, potato and ginger continued along with other notified agricultural produce.

¶118

17 -

¶119

NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶120

On 16.08.2017, a notification was issued by which a direction was issued to the functionaries who had been allotted shops at the Dasanapura sub-market yard to commence the regulated marketing of onion and garlic at Dasanapura sub-market yard and they were also directed to ensure that produce was taken to the Dasanapura sub-market yard. This notification was also published in the newspaper on 18.08.2017.

¶121

This Notification came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No.25290/2018 c/w. W.P. No.1695616965/20 and connected matters, and this Court by an interim order dated 03.07.2018 observed that this notification was just and proper, and proceeded to grant four months’ time to the petitioners herein to shift their trading from Yeshwantpur yard to the Dasanapura sub-market yard, subject to them filing an undertaking.

¶122

Ultimately, this petition was disposed of taking note of the interim order dated 03.07.2018 and the

¶123

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶124

petitioners therein were granted 4 months’ time to shift their trading activities from the Yeshwantpur market yard to the Dasanapura sub-market yard. Thus, the order for commencement of business at Dasanapura was also upheld by this Court.

¶125

The Notification dated 16.08.2017 was also the subject matter of W.P. No.25042/2018 and connected matters which was also disposed of by an order dated 05.02.2019. In this Writ Petition, the APMC informed the Court that the requirement of obtaining gate passes from Dasanapura had been modified in terms of a resolution dated 30.12.2017 and hence, the petition did not survive for consideration.

¶126

This Court while disposing of the above writ petitions also observed that the Director of Agricultural Marketing may consider — after taking note of all the relevant factors including the difficulties that would be faced by the traders in having two parallel market

¶127

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶128

yards — whether marketing of potato, garlic and onion could eventually be notified in one market yard and de-notified in the other market yard. Thus, this Court observed that the authorities would have to take into consideration as to whether there could be one market yard for marketing of potato, garlic and onion.

¶129

Pursuant to said order, the Government proceeded to issue an order on 17.01.2023 directing the shifting of the regulated marketing of onion, potato, garlic and ginger completely from the Yeshwanthpur yard to the Dasanapura sub-market yard.

¶130

The Government also took a decision in the very same order that market functionaries who already possessed shops at Yeshwanthpur would also be entitled to be entitled to allotment of shops in Dasanapura and to enable this, the bar under Rule 7(2) of the 2004 Rules was being relaxed.

¶131

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶132

On the following day, i.e., on 18.01.2023, a Notification was issued calling for objections to the proposal for declaring the Dasanapura sub-market yard for the regulated marketing of onion, potato, garlic and ginger.

¶133

On consideration of the objections that had been received, the State Government proceeded to issue a Notification under Section 6(3) of the 1966 Act notifying the A, B, C, D Blocks of Dasanapura submarket to be the area for the regulated marketing of onion, potato, garlic and ginger.

¶134

The petitioners, as already stated above, are before this Court challenging this Notification apart from the Government Order dated 17.1.2023 and also seek other declaratory prayers.

¶135

Learned Senior Counsel—Sri. Vivek Reddy appearing for the petitioners contended that the establishment of the Dasanapura sub-market was illegal inasmuch

¶136

21 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶137

as it contravened the proviso to Section 6(2) which stated that the limits of market or sub-market should not include any area beyond the limits of the area of the city within which that market yard is situated.

¶138

He contended that it would be impossible for the petitioners to shift to Dasanapura: firstly — because the APMC had already allotted shops to various merchants and they were occupying the prime shops; and secondly — the petitioners, by virtue of being forced to continue their business at Yeshwanthpur, would be given small shops which had been newly created and the shops which had been newly created were in fact contrary to the sanctioned plan.

¶139

Learned senior counsel sought to contend that the petitioners, having been engaged in business from an exceptionally long time at the Yeshwantpur market yard, should not be forced to shift to the Dasanapura

¶140

22 -

¶141

NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶142

sub-market yard, and this would ruin their

¶143

businesses completely.

¶144

Learned Senior Counsel—Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil appearing on behalf of the APMC, however, submitted that the Notification under Section 6(2) of the 1966 Act proposing to establish a sub-market at Dasanapura was challenged in W.P. Nos.73897658/2013 which was dismissed on 27.02.2013 and also by the order dated 16.09.2013 in W.P. Nos.35251-35379/2013 and connected matters, and, hence, the second attempt to thwart the establishment of the sub-market yard at Dasanapura should not be entertained.

¶145

Learned senior counsel also pointed out that in the year 2013, applications had been called for allotment of shops and this was also the subject of challenge in W.P. Nos.7389-7658/2013 which was also dismissed.

¶146

He submitted that in W.P. No.25052/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 05.02.2019, this

¶147

23 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶148

Court had observed that it would be appropriate for having one market yard for regulated marketing of onion, garlic, potato and ginger, and in light of this observation, the Government had set up a Committee which had recommended the regulated marketing of onion, garlic, potato and ginger to Dasanapura, and on the basis of this recommendation, the Government had taken a decision on 17.01.2023 and had also proceeded to issue Notifications in this regard. He submitted that in light of the long history of unsuccessful challenges being laid before this Court to the shifting of the business to Dasanapura, it would be improper to entertain this petition, which was basically yet another attempt to stall the shifting.

¶149

As for the argument that the shops at Dasanapura were either not available or were of a smaller dimension than the one presently held by the petitioners, learned senior counsel submitted that the

¶150

24 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶151

Rules were amended providing for a relaxation to the petitioners to retain the shops that they held at the Yeshwanthpur yard and, at the same time, for also enabling them to be eligible for allotment of shops at Dasanapura and, therefore, it was clear that the petitioners were in no way prejudiced and would, in

¶152

fact, stand to profit by being able to possess two shops.

¶153

Learned Senior counsel also filed a Memo indicating that there was a total of 420 shops available in the sub-market yard at Dasanapura sub-market, as compared to 348 shops at Yeshwantpur, and all the petitioners could therefore be accommodated on the shifting.

¶154

Learned Senior counsel also filed a Memo on 19.07.2024 in which the details of market functionaries engaged in the marketing of onion, garlic, ginger and potato in the main market yard were furnished. This memo indicated that there were

¶155

25 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶156

a total of 348 market functionaries in the Yeshwanthpur market yard engaged in the regulated marketing of Onion, Garlic, Potato and Ginger, and it also stated that a total of 420 shops were available for allotment.

¶157

In the Memo, it was also stated that out of 348 existing marketing functionaries at the Yeshwantpur market yard, 70 of them had not paid any market fees for the past three years and thus, they would not be eligible for allotment in the Dasanapura submarket yard. Thus, as a consequence, only 278 (348-70) market functionaries would be eligible for allotment and since there were 420 shops were available for allotment, all the market functionaries including the members of the petitioner-associations could be easily accommodated at the Dasanapura sub-market yard.

¶158

26 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶159

In light of the above contentions, the principal question that would arise for consideration in these batch of Writ Petitions is –

¶160

A. Whether the challenge to the Government Order directing the shifting of the regulated marketing of onion, garlic, ginger and potato from the Yeshwanthpur yard to the Dasanapura

¶161

sub-market was valid and justified; and

¶162

B. Whether the notification issued in this regard — declaring the Dasanapura sub-market yard as the place for the regulated marketing of onion, garlic, potato and ginger — is valid and legal;

¶163

As already noticed above, it is not in dispute that the Notification issued on 07.10.2009 under Section 6(2) of the 1966 Act declaring a specified area in Dasanapura to be a sub-market yard for the regulated marketing of onion and garlic was upheld by this Court in W.P. Nos.7389-7658/2013.

¶164

27 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶165

Fundamentally, once this Notification dated 07.10.2009 has been upheld way back in 2013 by the dismissal of W.P. No.35251/2013 and connected matters, it would not be permissible for this Court to entertain a second plea challenging the validity of the notification declaring a specified area in Dasanapura to be a sub-market yard for the regulated marketing of onion, ginger, garlic and potato.

¶166

It is no doubt true that this Notification dated 07.10.2009 was rescinded on 28.09.2013, but that would be of very little consequence since the validity of the first notification was upheld on merits by this Court, and the same has also attained finality.

¶167

It may also be pertinent to state here that the Notification calling for applications for allotment of about 200 shops in Dasanapura, in the year 2013 was also challenged by the market functionaries by filing W.P. Nos.7389-7658/2013 and these writ petitions were also dismissed, as a result which

¶168

28 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶169

shops have been allotted at the Dasanapura submarket yard and the regulated marketing of onion, garlic and potato have been taking place.

¶170

This Court — having upheld the move to shift the regulated marketing of onion, garlic and potato from the Yeshwanthpur yard to the Dasanapura submarket and having confirmed the decision of allotment of shops at Dasanapura way back in 2013 by the dismissal of WP 7389-7658/2013 — cannot obviously entertain the prayers made in this petition which seeks to lay a challenge to the declaration of the sub-market at Dasanapura.

¶171

The argument of the learned senior counsel Sri. Reddy that the establishment of a sub-market at Dasanapura contravened the proviso to Section 6(2) of the 1966 Act also cannot be accepted.

¶172

Even if it were to be assumed, for the sake of argument, that the specified area in Dasanapura is

¶173

29 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶174

situate outside the Bangalore City Corporation limits, it is to be stated here that though the first proviso of Section 6(2) does state that the limits of the submarket should not include any area beyond the limits of the area of the city in which the sub-market or market is situated, the second proviso also makes it clear that if in respect of any market area the Director is of the opinion that a suitable place or location of market yard or sub-market yard cannot easily be secured within the limits of the area of city or town or village proposed to be declared as market or sub-market, he could declare an area beyond the limits of the city as a market or sub-market yard.

¶175

A conjoint reading of both the provisos would, therefore, indicate that if a market or sub-market yard is situated within the limits of a city and if in the opinion of Director there was no suitable place within

¶176

the limits of the city, it would be permissible for declaring an area outside the city to be a market

¶177

30 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶178

yard or a sub-market yard. It is thus clear that there is no contravention of the first proviso to Section 6 (2) by the issuance of a declaration of a sub-market yard at Dasanapura.

¶179

In a burgeoning city such as Bengaluru, which continues to expand rapidly, the argument of the petitioners that the sub-market should be within the corporation limits of city of Bengaluru cannot be accepted. In matters of this nature, a pragmatic view would have to be taken of the existing infrastructure and the burden that the existing infrastructure can bear.

¶180

It cannot be in dispute that there is already a severe congestion of traffic in the city and if the movement of heavy transport vehicles is permitted to come within the city, which would be inevitable if the regulating marketing of onion, garlic, potato and ginger is permitted to continue at Yeshwanthpur, the

¶181

same would escalate the congestion to

¶182

31 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶183

unmanageable levels and result in acute issues relating to movement of vehicles. The private business interest of the petitioners would have to yield to the larger interests of the public and the petitioners cannot, therefore, seek continuation of their business activities at Yeshwanthpur yard. If the prayers of the petitioners were to be granted, it would only compound the existing traffic woes of Bengaluru.

¶184

The other argument that the shops in Dasanapura sub-market yard are not conducive for the petitioners to start their business, because the prime places are occupied by the earlier occupants and the existing shops are small, also cannot be accepted.

¶185

The Memo filed by the APMC on 19.07.2024 indicates that there are a total of 348 existing market functionaries engaged in the regulated marketing of onion, ginger, garlic and potato at the Yeshwanthpur yard. The Memo also records the details of the shop

¶186

32 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶187

of those 348 market functionaries in the following

¶188

manner-

¶189

“2. Details of the shop-cum-godowns occupied by Onion, Ginger, Garlic and Potato traders in Yeshwanthpura Main Market Yard along with Dimensions:

¶190

Sl. No.	Shop Dimensions	No. of shops in the Main Market Yard Yeshwanthpur
1.	Up to 1000 Sq. ft.	219
2.	1000 ft. to 1500 sq.ft	64
3.	1501 ft. to 2000 sq. ft.	44
4.	2001 sq. ft and above	21
	Total	348

¶191

The very same Memo also has a tabular column which provides the details of shop-cum-godowns available for allotment in Dasanapura sub-market yard along with dimensions, which reads as under –

¶192

“4. Details of the shop-cum-godowns available for allotment in Dasanapura Sub-Market Yard along with Dimensions:

¶193

Sl.	Shop Dimensions	No. of shops
No.		available in the

¶194

33 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶195

		Sub-Market Yard Yeshwanthpur
1.	Up to 1000 Sq. ft.	265
2.	1000 ft. to 1500 sq.ft	132
3.	1501 ft. to 2000 sq. ft.	--
4.	2001 sq. ft and above	23
	Total	420
Note	Allottees whose period of 55 months on Leave-and- License has expired	102
Note	Traders in Food Grains in Dasanapura Sub-Market yard who will now be shifted to the Main Market Yard in Yeshwanthpur	43

¶196

As could be seen from the above, the existing 219 market functionaries in Yeshwanthpur possess shops which have the dimension up to 1000 sq.ft. and there are 265 shops of up to 1000 sq.ft. available in Dasanapura. Thus, all the existing 219 market functionaries in the Yeshwantpur yard can be accommodated in the 265 shops available in Dasanapura sub-market yard.

¶197

Similarly, the 64 functionaries who are in possession of shops of more than 1000 sq. ft at the

¶198

34 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶199

Yeshwanthpur yard can also be accommodated in the 132 shops having an extent of 1000 ft. to 1500 sq.ft which are available at Dasanapura.

¶200

It is no doubt true that there are 44 market functionaries at the Yeshwantpur yard who are in possession of shops measuring 1500 sq. ft. to 2000 sq.ft. In my view, these 44 market functionaries would have to accept the allotment of shops having dimensions of 1000 ft. to 1500 sq.ft., at the Dasanpura sub-market yard since the authorities cannot be expected to satisfy the demands of each individual functionaries and these market functionaries would have to settled for a shop with a slightly lesser dimension.

¶201

It is also to be noticed that there are 21 market functionaries who are in possession of shops of 2000 sq.ft. and above at Yeshwanthpur yard and there are in fact 23 shops of 2000 sq. ft. and above which are available in Dasanapura and consequently, to the

¶202

35 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶203

extent possible, out of the 44 existing market functionaries at Yeshwanthpur, the authorities can accommodate them in the shops of 2000 and 2500 sq.ft. and above.

¶204

The Memo also records that there would be 43 traders in Dasanapura who would be shifted to main market yard and there are 55 market functionaries whose lease and licenses have expired. Obviously, these also would have to be made available to the existing market functionaries to facilitate their smooth transition to Dasanapura and the authorities are directed to ensure that these shops which become available shall be allotted to the petitioners and its members who would now have to shift to the Dasanapura sub-market yard.

¶205

It is also to be noticed that the Memo states that there is an extent of 1,56,510 sq. mts. for auction platform which was available and which would be more suitable for onion, garlic, ginger and potato,

¶206

36 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶207

and allotments could also be made there, if necessary, in the future. It is therefore obvious that there is an abundance of space available for the regulated marketing of onion, garlic, potato and ginger, and the petitioners and their members would not be prejudiced in any manner.

¶208

In the light of the memo filed by the APMC, a direction will have to be issued to them to ensure that the existing market functionaries who are required to shift to the Dasanapura sub-market yard are accommodated in the 420 shops indiacted in the memo in the manner stated above. The APMC shall ensure that the market functionaries are allotted shops in the Dasanapura sub-markeyt yard commensurate or in proportion to the extent of space that they already possess in Yeshwanthpur yard as observed above in the prceeding paragraphs.

¶209

It may also be pertinent to state here that though under the Rules, under normal circumstances, a

¶210

37 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶211

market functionary would be entitled to hold only one shop of premises in one market yard, the State has amended the Rules and permitted the existing market functionaries in onion, garlic, potato to retain their existing shops at Yeshwanthpur yard and at the same time also be eligible for allotment at Dasanapura. The petitioners and its members, in fact, stand benefited by this relaxation as compared to the other market functionaries and would also be permitted to hold shops in a market and sub-market, against the general norm.

¶212

In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot have any grievance by the declaration of the specified area at Dasanpura for the regulated marketing of onion, garlic, potato and ginger under the impugned declaration and also the Government Order.

¶213

I am thus of the view that there is no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the petitioners and

¶214

38 - NC: 2024:KHC:47894 WP No. 5452 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5455 of 2023

¶215

these petitions are, therefore, dismissed, s ubject, however to the directions issued above relating to the allotment of shops at the Dasanpura sub-market yard to the functionaries who are required to shift their businesses to Dasanaura sub-market

¶216

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶217

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

The Bengaluru Garlic Merchants Association v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bengaluru Garlic Merchants Association 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayanthi D H Vs Dinesh K

Smt Vilma D P Alias Keerthi Vs Sri Sachin D S Alias Sachin Kumar D S Alias Sachin Kumar

Mrs Chaitra B Kulkarni , Vs Mr Subhiksh Kulkarni

Smt Prajna v H Vs Sri Vijay Shrinivas Gowda

Smt Prajna v H Vs Sri Vijay Srinivas Gowda

Smt. Arpitha Vs Mr Anand S