M/S L.O. Bamane and Sons Vs the Director

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100037 OF 2017 (APMC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

M/S. L.O. BAMANE & SONS, PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI ASHOK LAXMAN BAMANE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHOP NO.V-9, APMC MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI – 590010.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. JAGDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT, IIND, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶10

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶12

THE AGRICULTURE MARKETING PRODUCE COMMITTEE BELAGAVI, BY ITS SECRETARY, APMC MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI – 590010.

¶13

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1, SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 06.10.2016 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-'L' AND THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2016 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN NO.KRU:UMA:SA(BE)/1377/2016-17 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘M’ AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

i. Quash the resolution dated 06.10.2016 passed by the second respondent produced at Annexure-'L' and the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the second respondent in No.KRU:UMA:SA(BE)/1377/2016-17 produced at Annexure-‘M’.

¶22

ii. Issue any other writ or direction or order the petitioner is found entitled to.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are;

¶24

2.1. The petitioner claims to be a partnership firm carrying on the business of commission agency in Plot No.V-9, situated at Market Yard, Belagavi, and a successor of M/s. L.O.Bamane,

¶25

K.M.Honagekar & Co.

¶26

2.2. The respondents had executed a sale deed in favor of M/s.L.O. Bamane, Honagekar & Co. (predecessor firm), on 12.08.1971, where the said predecessor firm was carrying on business. The said firm was dissolved in the year 1980, in

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶28

its place M/s.L.O. Bamane & Sons was started from 03.10.1980 and have been carrying on the business therein as commission agent.

¶29

2.3. In the year 2016, the second respondent issued

¶30

a notice to the petitioner, claiming that the petitioner had not made payment of the market fee/cess, as also not renewed the license. It was further alleged that there was a transfer of the premises contrary to Rule 17(2)(a)(v) and Rule 12 of the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (‘Rules, 2004’, for short), as also proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 9 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (‘the Act’, for short).

¶31

2.4. In furtherance thereof, proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974, and

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶33

thereafter, the allotment made in favor of the predecessor firm came to be forfeited by order dated 22.10.2016.

¶34

2.5. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.

¶35

The submission of Sri.Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner is that;

¶36

3.1. The sale deed having been executed in favor of the predecessor firm, on the dissolution of the firm, certain other partners have continued the business of the predecessor firm in the name of the petitioner. There is no dispute by any other partner of the predecessor firm.

¶37

3.2. The petitioner firm has obtained necessary licenses and also has been making payment of necessary fees to the second respondent. Their current license issued is valid till the year 2029-

¶38

30 and therefore, the second respondent cannot contend that there is any violation in

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶40

terms of either Rule 17(2)(a)(v) or Rule 12 of the Rules, 2004.

¶41

3.3. There is no transfer as such of the property

¶42

requiring the fulfilment of the proviso to Section 9 of the Act.

¶43

3.4. Having recognized the petitioner and having

¶44

issued the license as regards the concerned premises, the second respondent has acted in a completely illegal manner by seeking to forfeit the allotment made, which amounts to a fraud on power resorted to by the second respondent.

¶45

3.5. In that background, the action on the part of the second respondent had to be strictly dealt with.

¶46

Sri. C. V. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for second respondent - APMC, would submit that;

¶47

4.1. In terms of Rule 17(2)(a)(v) of Rules 2004, if

¶48

an allottee does not continue as a licensed market functionary or violates any of the terms

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶50

and conditions of allotment, the Market

¶51

Committee would be well within its powers to forfeit the said allotment.

¶52

4.2. By referring to Rule 12 of the Rules 2004, he submits that there is a restriction on transfer, which has been imposed on the allottee. The allotment having been made in favor of the predecessor firm, the same would not be automatically transferred in favor of the successor firm of the petitioner. Therefore, there being a violation of the Rule restricting transfer without obtaining permission in terms of the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Act, the respondents have exercised their rights to forfeit the allotment made to the predecessor firm.

¶53

4.3. That the notices were issued to the predecessor firm, but were replied to by the petitioner. Since the predecessor firm not being in existence and no business having been carried

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶55

out by the predecessor firm, the action taken by the Committee is proper and correct.

¶56

4.4. Lastly, the action taken under the Public Premises Act is in regard to the petitioner and not as regards the predecessor firm and therefore, the order passed in the proceedings in Miscellaneous Appeal No.43/2016, dated 09.09.2019, by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, would not enure to the benefit the petitioner.

¶57

4.5. On all these grounds, he submits that the forfeiture order is being proper and correct, the above petition is required to be dismissed.

¶58

Learned AGA submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and the State has nothing to do with it.

¶59

Heard Learned counsel Sri.Jagadish Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. C. V.

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶61

Angadi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the records.

¶62

The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that Plot No.V-9 had been allotted to the predecessor firm in the year 1970, and a sale deed came to be executed on 12.08.1971. The predecessor firm having been dissolved in the year 1980, and the petitioner firm having been constituted on 03.10.1980 and having taken over a portion of the assets of the predecessor firm, are also not in dispute. The license having been issued by the second respondent and continues to be in force till the year 2030, is also not in dispute.

¶63

For the first time, action was sought to be initiated on 12.08.2016 against the petitioner, contending that the petitioner had permitted someone else to use the premises and therefore, there is a transfer. Subsequently, on 07.09.2016, it was contended that the market cess had not been paid by the predecessor

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶65

firm. Notices have been issued to the predecessor firm and not the petitioner is also not in dispute. A resolution came to be passed on 06.10.2016 without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to place any document on record, in furtherance of which, on 22.10.2016, the forfeiture order was passed.

¶66

Suffice it to say that the entire action taken by the second respondent is between 12.08.2016 and 22.10.2016, which is hardly 70 days. The hurry in which the second respondent has acted in these 70 days and has not taken any action from the year 1980, when the predecessor firm had been dissolved and the present petitioner firm has been constituted, for nearly 36 years, is required to be deprecated and is so deprecated.

¶67

The petitioner having been reconstituted on 03.10.1980 and carrying on the business and subsequently having been reconstituted on

¶68

01.07.1996, payments having been made as per the

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100037 of 2017

¶70

ledger extracts produced, the license having been renewed in the name of the petitioner is a clear and categorical indication that the petitioner is conducting the business from the said premises postreconstitution in the year 1980.

¶71

The contention of Sri C.V. Angadi, learned counsel for the second respondent, that the second respondent came to know about the said constitution and the petitioner running the business only in the year 2016 after inspection and had no knowledge of it from the year 1980 to 2016, cannot be accepted. Even if the second respondent could take action under Rule 17(2)(a)(v) or Rule 12 of the Rules or Section 9 (2) of the Act, the same is required to be taken within a reasonable period of time, which has not been done.

¶72

Even according to the second respondent, when the violation occurred in 1980 and no action having been taken until 2016, by which time the petitioner had already established and was running its business, the

¶73