Disposed

M/S K M Mohammed Mansoor v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC3 Apr 2024WP/9417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners allotted leased APMC sites sought sanction plans for construction. Respondents delayed due to pending irregularity inquiry. Court directed respondents to consider representations within three months, balancing lease rights against administrative delays.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider representations dated 06.11.2023 and pass appropriate order within three months of receipt.

M/S K M Mohammed Mansoor Vs the Chief… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13625 WP No. 9417 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9417 OF 2024 (APMC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. K.M.MOHAMMED MANSOOR, FRUIT MERCHANT AND COMMISSION AGENTS A.P.M.C. COMMITTEE, REGULATED MARKET YARD, UDUPI TOWN TALUK AND DISTRICT. DULY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETROR SRI. K.M.MOHAMMED MANSOOR, S/O ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, UDUPI – 576 105.

¶9

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

M/S. PRAKASH SAJJANA, VEGETABLE MERCHANT AND COMMISSION AGENTS APMC COMMITTEE, REGULATED MARKET YARD, UDUPI TOWN TALUK AND DISTRICT. DULY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. PRAKASH SAJJANA, S/O RUDRAPPA SAJJANA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, UDUPI – 576 105.

¶11

M/S. K. SAQIB AHMAD, VEGETABLE MERCHANT APMC COMMITTEE, REGULATED MARKET YARD, UDUPI TOWN TALUK AND DISTRICT, DULY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. K. SAQIB AHMAD, S/O SAMIULLA AKTAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, UDUPI – 576 105.

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13625 WP No. 9417 of 2024

¶13

M/S. SANGANNA R SAJJANA, VEGETABLE MERCHANT AND APMC COMMITTEE, REGULATED MARKET YARD, UDUPI TOWN TALUK AND DISTRICT, DULY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. SANGANNA R SAJJANA, S/O RUDRAPPA SAJJANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, UDUPI – 576 105.

¶14

M/S. ABDUL KHADER, K.S.M. FRUITS, VEGETABLE MERCHANT APMC COMMITTEE, REGULATED MARKET YARD, UDUPI TOWN AND DISTRICT. DULY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. ABDUL KHADER, S/O ACCHABBA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, UDUPI – 576 105. 6. M/S. HAJI BYARI MAIDIN, VEGETABLE MERCHANT, APMC COMMITTEE, REGULATED MARKET YARD UDUPI TOWN AND DISTRICT. DULY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. HAJI BYARI MAIDIN, S/O MOJDIN BYARI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, UDUPI – 576 105.

¶15

M/S. PRAHALAD NAIK, VEGETABLE FRUITS APMC COMMITTEE, REGULATED MARKET YARD, UDUPI TOWN AND DISTRICT. DULY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. PRAHALAD NAIK, S/O SATISH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, UDUPI – 576 105.

¶16

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13625 WP No. 9417 of 2024

¶17

M/S. MALLIKARJUNA DODDAPPA, VEGETABLE MERCHANT APMC COMMITTEE, REGULATED MARKET YARD, UDUPI TOWN AND DISTRICT. DULY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. MALLIKARJUNA DODDAPPA, S/O DODDAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, UDUPI – 576 105.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA B C., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, 2, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶23

THE SECRETARY, THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, RMC YARD, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, UDUPI – 576 105.

¶24

THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, RMC YARD, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, UDUPI – 576 105.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT.HEMALATHA V., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.T.SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13625 WP No. 9417 of 2024

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT AGAINST THE R-2 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, BENGALURU, THE R-3 THE SECRETARY A.P.M.C AT UDUPI AND THE R-4 - THE ADMINISTRATOR A.P.M.C YARD AT UDUPI BY DIRECTING ALL THE AUTHORITIES STATED ABOVE THAT TO COMPLY UNDER ANNX-K WITH THE REQUEST SO MADE ON THEIR WRITTEN REQUISITION DATED 06.11.2023 UNDER ANNEXURE - K WITHOUT ANY ALTERATIONS BY GRANTING SANCTIONED PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING UP THE SHOP CUM GODOWN ON THEIR ALLOTTED PREMISED SITUATED AT A.P.M.C YARD, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE AND NOT DELAYED IN REGARD TO ACCORD THE SANCTION PLAN AND ISSUANCE OF THE SAME AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF COMING MONSOON FOR SMOOTH CARRYING UPON THEIR TRADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TO ALLOW THE SAID WP AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have been allotted sites in respondent No.3/Market yard on lease cum sale basis, and the petitioners asserts that a registered lease cum sale agreement have been executed in their favour by respondent No.3. The petitioners asserts that they submitted a representation with respondent Nos.3 and 4 to sanction the plan for construction of shops on the sites allotted on lease cum sale basis. The petitioners' grievance is that the representations submitted by them have not been considered by respondent Nos.3 and 4 without any valid reason/s.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that on receiving a complaint, the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi instructed respondent No.2 to look into irregularities in the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13625 WP No. 9417 of 2024

¶34

allotment process and therefore, pending consideration of the same, the petitioners' request cannot be considered. He further on instruction submits that the Committee was constituted and report has been submitted with respondent No.2, and the same is pending consideration.

¶35

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 having executed the registered lease cum sale agreement in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their rights to put up construction on the sites allotted to them during the subsistence of lease cum sale agreement.

¶36

Therefore, the petition stands disposed of directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the applications/representations dated 06.11.2023 submitted by the petitioners at Annexure-k and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

RKA

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

M/S K M Mohammed Mansoor v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S K M Mohammed Mansoor v. the Chief Secretary

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

Dr Darshan a v Vs State of Karnataka Health and Family Welfare Department

Sri.v.N.Raju Vs Smt.Mini Krishna Kumar

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Benson Benny Vs Union of India

Mrs. Poonam Kochhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lenny Menezes Vs the State of Karnataka