Dismissed¶44

Iqbal Abdul Kader v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2025WP/1834/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APMC sundry shop allotment; Leave and Licence Agreement renewal; Rule 14(6) 55-month maximum period; Rule 16(2) handover notice; first preference/renewal clause subject to Rule 14(6); COVID-19 business loss claim not examined; Dasanapura/Yashwanthapura market yard; interim order extension 2½ years; monthly licence fee Rs.8,786/-; writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 dismissed; liberty to apply afresh without prejudice; Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the petition; writ petition dismissed. Petitioner at liberty to apply afresh if the shop is notified for allotment, such application to be considered without prejudice. ¶44

Iqbal Abdul Kader Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on the petition; writ petition dismissed. Petitioner at liberty to apply afresh if the shop is notified for allotment, such application to be considered without prejudice.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 02.01.2023 (Annexure-G) issued by respondent no.3 under Rule 16(2) of the Rules, calling upon the petitioner to hand over sundry shop no.25, was contrary to his right of renewal/first preference under clause (ii) of the Leave and Licence Agreement (Annexure-C). +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Clauses (i) and (ii) of the LLA are in consonance with Rule 14(6) of the Rules but split into two clauses; clause (ii) (first preference in renewal) is therefore subject to clause (i).

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Read together, the LLA clauses give an allottee first preference only for successive 11-month periods up to the maximum of 55 months; the claim for preference cannot be in perpetuity or extend beyond 55 months.

¶42

Key takeaways

The Court declined to examine the disputed COVID-19 loss claims/counter-claims, since pursuant to the interim order the petitioner had already availed nearly 2½ years' extension beyond the 55-month period.ratio¶43
The petitioner's contention against the Annexure-G notice does not sustain; the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.ratio¶44
The dismissal does not bar the petitioner from applying afresh if respondent no.3 notifies the shop for allotment; in such event the respondents are expected to consider his application without prejudice arising from this dismissal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Ravi V Hosmani, J.) dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 02.01.2023 issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Yashwanthapura under Rule 16(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004, requiring surrender of sundry shop no.25 (B-Block, Dasanapura). Held: the allottee's first-preference renewal clause (ii) in the Leave and Licence Agreement is subject to clause (i) and to Rule 14(6), so total occupation is capped at 55 months and preference cannot be claimed in perpetuity. The Court declined to adjudicate the disputed COVID-19 business-loss claim, since the petitioner had already enjoyed nearly 2½ years' additional occupancy under interim orders. Petition dismissed, with liberty to apply afresh if the shop is re-notified, such application to be considered without prejudice.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37235 WP No. 1834 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 1834 OF 2023 (APMC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

IQBAL ABDUL KADER S/O ABDUL KADER AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 26/2, 14^TH CROSS, GANESHA TEMPLE STREET, GOVINDAPURA, BANGALORE-560 045.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDINGS, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16/2, RAJABHAVANA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶14

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, YASHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU 560 022. REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

[BY SRI BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 (PH); SRI SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 (PH)]

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:37235 WP No. 1834 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUAHSING THE NOTICE DATED 02/01/2023 IN NO.KRUUMASA(BE)/MALIGE(DASANAPURA)3502.2022-23. ISSUED BY THE R3 COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. DIRECT THE R3 TO CONSIDERED THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/01/2023 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging notice dated 02.01.2023 issued by respondent no.3 at Annexure-G and seeking for writ of mandamus to direct respondent no.3 to consider petitioner's representation dated 10.01.2023 at Annexure-H, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

Smt.Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was allottee of Sundry shop bearing no.25, B-Block, Dasanpura Agricultural Marketing Committee, on Leave and Licence Agreement ('LLA' for short) basis in 2018 and carrying on business in slippers. Said allotment was in pursuance of auction for a period of 11 months renewable up to

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37235 WP No. 1834 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

55 months on escalation charges at 5% in licence fee after 33 months. It was submitted, said allotment was for monthly fee of Rs.8,786/-.which was being paid regularly. Such being case, on 02.01.2023 petitioner was issued with impugned notice at Annexure-G calling upon him to hand over shop back to Committee in terms of Rule 16(2) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 ('Rules' for short). Immediately, petitioner submitted representation dated 10.01.2023 at Annexure-H, wherein he stated that he had cleared all dues and no prior notice was issued to him. It was submitted, petitioner had sustained loss of business during COVID-19 Pandemic period.

¶28

It was submitted that LLA at Annexure-C contained condition in clause (ii) providing for first preference to allottee in case of renewal. It was submitted respondent had failed to consider petitioners representation constraining petitioner to approach this Court. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:37235 WP No. 1834 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

On other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and T Swaroop, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 submitted, allotment of sundry shops was under Rule 14 of Rules. As per sub-rule (6) of Rule 14, initial allotment would be for a period of 11 months, renewable by further 11 months, upto maximum of 55 months. It was submitted, total period of allotment to petitioner had long crossed 55 months. In view of same, petitioner was issued with notice at Annexure-G to hand over vacant possession of premises under LLA. It was submitted, clause (ii) in LLA subject to clause (i) which would be in terms of Rule 14 (6). It was submitted, allottees of sundry shops would not have right of allotment in perpetuity. Even insofar as contention about suffering loss during COVID-19 pandemic, it was submitted during said period entire APMC market yard was shifted to Dasanpura, which was functioning in full-flaw.

¶33

It was further brought to notice of this Court that due to interim order granted in this writ petition, petitioner continued for two more years, therefore there was no merit in any of petitioner's claim and sought dismissal of writ petition.

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37235 WP No. 1834 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶37

record.

¶38

From above, petitioner's grievance against impugned notice at Annexure-G is firstly on ground that same was contrary to petitioner's right of renewal under clause (ii) of LLA at Annexure-C; secondly on ground that petitioner had sustained loss during COVID-19 pandemic, while respondents contend that terms of LLA are governed by Rule 14(6) of Rules, which do not provide renewal of licence beyond 55 months, which term petitioner had already completed.

¶39

At outset, perusal of LLA at Annexure-C indicates that allotment of shop no.25 in favour of petitioner commenced from 03.01.2018, date of handing over of possession as per Annexure-E. As per Rule 14(6) of Rules initial allotment would be for a period of 11 months, renewed for further 11 months upto maximum of 55 months. Clauses (i) and (ii) of LLA are in consonance with Rule 14(6), but split into two clauses. This can only mean that clause (ii) would be subject to clause (i) and combined reading would only mean that an allotee under LLA would have first preference entertain

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:37235 WP No. 1834 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

for next period of 11 months and thereafter, subject to maximum period of 55 months and that such claim for preference cannot be in perpetuity or extend beyond period of 55 months. Though, petitioner claims to have sustained loss during COVID-19 Pandemic, which is seriously disputed by respondents, this Court need not gone into disputed claims/counter claims, especially, when in pursuance of interim order granted by this Court petitioner has availed nearly 2½ years extension beyond period of 55 months.

¶44

In view of above, petitioner's contention against notice at Annexure-G would not sustain. Consequently, writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

¶45

However, dismissal of writ petition would not come in way of petitioner applying afresh, in case, respondents notifies said shop for allotment. In such event, it is expected of respondents to consider petitioner's application without being prejudiced about dismissal of this writ petition.

¶46

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶47

Psg*

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Iqbal Abdul Kader v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal Abdul Kader v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chennarayappa Vs Deputy General Manager

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Smt M. Nagalakshmi

Fayaz Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Spoonability LLP Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Vishweshwaraiah Vs Executive Engineer (Ele.) (v)

Db Renews Private Limited Vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission