Fayaz Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36801 WP No. 26669 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 26669 OF 2024 (APMC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

FAYAZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED YUNUS, NO.61, KARKADA COMPOUND, OPP. BUNTS LADIES HOSTEL, UDUPI-576101, ALSO AT PLOT NO. 44, APMC, ADI-UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT-576101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PARIKSHIT S S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, BENGALURUR-560001.

¶13

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

¶14

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURAL MARKETING OFFICE OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING DIRECTOR, NO. 16, 2^ND RAJABHAVAN ROAD, P.B. NO. 5309, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

ASST. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, UDUPI DISTRICT-576105.

¶16

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION MARKETING COMMITTEE, ADI-UDUPI, UDUPI - 576 105, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

PRAKASH SAJJAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O RUDRAPPA SAJJAN, R/AT NO. 7-105D,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36801 WP No. 26669 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SAJJAN SHETTY NITHYA, BOLARAGUDDA, BAILU MANE, UDYAVARA, UDUPI - 574 118.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

[BY SRI BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 (PH); SRI JOSEPH ANIL KUMAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R4 (PH); SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 (PH)]

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER ALLOTMENT ORDER DATED 06.03.2023 BEARING NO.KRU MA E/AA BHI VI-1/LEE CUM SE/710/2022 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G WITH RESPECT ALLOTMENT OF PLOT NO.44 TO R-5 AND ALSO NOTICE DATED KRU.U.MAA.SA(U)/932/2024-25 DATED 09.09.2024 ISSUED BY R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-L, DIRECT R-1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOT PLOT NO.44 SITUATED IN APMC YARD, ADI-UDUPI, UDUPI.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Challenging order dated 06.03.2023 issued by respondent no.2 at Annexure-G insofar as allotment of plot no.44 to respondent no.5 and notice dated 09.09.2024 issued by respondent no.4 at Annexure-L, this writ petition is filed.

¶28

Sri S.S. Parikshit, learned counsel for petitioner

¶29

submitted that petitioner is a market functionary of respondent no.4 - APMC, since date of issuance of licence on 08.09.2014 as

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36801 WP No. 26669 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

per Annexure-A. It was submitted that petitioner had renewed licence and was running a fruit shop in vacant space, which was later numbered as plot no.44. It was submitted that on 31.01.2023, respondent no.4 issued tender notification as per Annexure-D calling for application for allotment of sites in APMC Yard. On 15.02.2023, petitioner applied for allotment of plot no.44. It was submitted on 06.03.2023, respondent no.4 announced list of allottees as per Annexure-G. Though petitioner was earlier licencee than respondent no.5 and also paid more market fee than respondent no.5, respondent no.4 had allotted plot no.44 in favour of respondent no.5 in violation of Conditions and Rules of allotment.

¶33

It was firstly submitted, as per condition no.1 of allotment, there was priority in allotment to be determined on basis of market fee paid during 3 years prior to date of notification. It was submitted, condition no.3 prohibited an earlier allottee from making one more application. It was submitted that petitioner had paid market fee of Rs.7,149/during year 2019-2020, Rs.17,920/- during year 2020-2021 and Rs.41,370/- during year 2021-2022. It was alleged that respondent no.5 had not paid any market fee. Thus, allotment

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:36801 WP No. 26669 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

of plot no.44 to respondent no.5 was contrary to law and sought for quashing same.

¶38

Sri Bhojegowda T. Koller, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3; Sri Joseph Anil Kumar A., learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Smt.Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for respondent no.5 opposed petition.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted allotment of sites was strictly in compliance with Conditions of Allotment and Rules. It was submitted, though Rule-8(1)(ii) of Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (' Rules ', for short) stipulated consideration of seniority amongst licencees as a criteria, it was in conjunction with number of earlier failed attempts in seeking allotment. It was submitted, allotment notification in year 2023 was issued for first time and as there were no previous attempts, Rule-8(1)(ii) of Rules would not be attracted.

¶40

It was submitted Rule-8(4) of Rules provide for

¶41

preparation of merit list of applicants. It was submitted as per

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:36801 WP No. 26669 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

said list, petitioner secured merit marks of 38 while respondent no.5 secured merit marks of 45. Therefore, selection of respondent no.5 for allotment of plot no.44 was justified.

¶46

Insofar as allegations about petitioner’s brother being allotted another plot or family firm allotted site earlier, it was submitted, Rules only prohibited only a licencee from applying/obtaining more than one allotment. It was submitted as other applicant was brother of respondent no.5 and separate licencee, bar would not be attracted. Likewise in case of family firm in which respondent no.5 was not a partner. Therefore, it could not be alleged that there was second allotment in favour of same licencee.

¶47

Learned counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that respondent no.5 had filed application individually as respondent no.5 was a holder of separate licence and had paid higher market fee than petitioner, respondent no.4 had rightly chosen respondent no.5 for allotment. It was further submitted, after preparation of merit list by respondent no.4 - APMC, same was notified on notice board. Despite being aware of same, petitioner had not filed objections. It was submitted that selection/allotment was strictly as per provisions and did not

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36801 WP No. 26669 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

suffer from any illegality or irregularity and therefore sought for dismissal.

¶51

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record.

¶52

From above, petitioner's main grievance against allotment of plot no.44 by respondent no.4 in favour of respondent no.5 is firstly on ground that petitioner was earlier licencee than respondent no.5 and that he had also paid more market fee than respondent no.5 during 3 years prior to date notification.

¶53

Insofar as seniority amongst licencees as a criteria for selection, though there is reference in Rule-8(1)(ii), same is as rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.4, is in conjunction with earlier failed attempts in securing allotment.

¶54

Statement by respondent no.4 that notification at Annexure-D was issued for first time in APMC is not disputed. Moreover in tabulation of merit of applicants as per AnnexureR7, respondent no.4 has stated that average market fee paid by petitioner is Rs.22,146/- earning 38 merit marks including number of years as licencee, while average market fee paid by

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:36801 WP No. 26669 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

respondent no.5 is Rs.33,896/- earning 45 merit marks. Therefore, respondent no.5 is clearly more meritorious than petitioner. Allegation that respondent no.5 had not paid any market fee is not substantiated.

¶59

In view of above, grounds urged by petitioner against allotment of plot no.44 by respondent no.4 to respondent no.5 do not hold any water. Consequently, writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed .

¶60

In view of dismissal of petition, all pending applications are disposed of as unnecessary.

¶61

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶62

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Fayaz Ahmed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fayaz Ahmed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Smt. Kempalakshmamma

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri T. T. Lakshmaiah

The Executive Engineer Vs G. T. Thimmareddy @ G. T. Thippareddy @ Thippareddy

Chennarayappa Vs Deputy General Manager

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

Emmanuel Vincent D Sa Vs Union of India