Basava Prasad Industries Vs the Director and Anr.

MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING ALLOTMENT OF SITE AS PER THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 25-09-2024 DULY RECOMMENDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26-09-2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND K.1 BY CONSIDERING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONER AS PER REPRESENTATION DATED 30-09-2024 AS AT ANNEXURE-L WITHIN SUCH STIPULATED TIME AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to consider the representation dated 30.09.2024 marked at Annexure-L. In terms of the said representation, the petitioner has prayed to allot site bearing No.269 of Market Yard at Gandhi Gunj, Bidar.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1487 WP No. 200084 of 2025

¶30

The petitioner claims that he had applied for

¶31

allotment of the aforementioned site as per the provisions of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act. It is his case that he is eligible for allotment based on his trade experience and contribution made marketing committee as a trader. It is his submission that despite he being eligible, some other person who is not as qualified, was considered for allotment and a resolution was passed in this behalf by the Committee. The petitioner claims that he filed objection to the said resolution before the appellate authority and the appellate authority set aside the resolution and remitted the matter to consider the application seeking allotment of sites strictly in accordance with law governing allotment.

¶32

It is further submitted that later the Committee has taken a decision on 25.09.2024 and same was communicated to 1^st respondent– Director, Department of Agriculture Produce, Bengaluru, on 26.09.2024 as per Annexure-K & K1. Despite the Committee taking a

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1487 WP No. 200084 of 2025

¶34

decision proposing to allot aforementioned site to the petitioner based on his eligibility, 1^st respondent have not taken further action. Hence, he submits that the petition has to be allowed and direction is to be issued to the respondent to consider the representation at Annexure-L.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that, there was a direction to respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.203665/2024 to consider the representation dated 11.11.2024 submitted by the petitioner’s therein and their names were also recommended by respondent No.2 and proposal is sent to respondent No.1.

¶36

This court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar.

¶37

The records produced by the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner has applied for allotment of site bearing No.269. Once it was proposed to be allotted to someone else and later the petitioner filed objection to the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1487 WP No. 200084 of 2025

¶39

said proposal, the proposal of the Committee was later set

¶40

aside by the appellate authority and the matter was remitted to the Committee for fresh consideration. Upon fresh consideration, the Committee found the petitioner is eligible for allotment and the decision is also communicated to respondent No.1 as required under law.

¶41

This Court has also noticed the order dated 16.12.2024 in Writ Petition No.203665/2024, wherein, this Court has directed the respondent No.1 in the said writ petition i.e. The Director, Department of Agriculture Produce Marketing, Bengaluru, to consider representation dated 11.11.2024. From the said order, it is evident that, this Court has not given any opinion as to who is entitled for allotment of site. Under these circumstances, the following order is passed:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The petition is allowed;

¶44

(ii) Respondent No.1 shall consider the representation filed by the petitioner, as well as

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1487 WP No. 200084 of 2025

¶46

the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.203665/2024 and thereafter decide as to who among the petitioners in Writ Petition No.203665/2024 is eligible for allotment of site. The decision shall be taken within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶47

(ii) It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or on the merits of the petitioners in W.P.No.203665/2024.

¶48

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

BL,SVH

¶51

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45

Basava Prasad Industries v. the Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basava Prasad Industries v. the Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daulatraya S/O Sahebgouda Vs Bapugouda S/O Sahebgouda and Ors.

M/S Namo Sales Vs the Superintendent

Ratnamma Vs Ashok

Siddhartha Institute of Technology Vs Sri M a Nagesh

Sri Siddartha Institute of Technology Vs the Union of India

Jagdish Khoba Class-I Contractor Vs Union of India and Ors.