B Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO MODIFY THE ALLOTMENT ORDER DATED 15.11.2024 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C IN KRU.UMASA/SHI/GLF/1292/2024-25 AND THEREBY DIRECT THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO ALLOT THE SAME SHOPS TO THE PETITIONERS i.e. SHOP NO. 6 TO FIRST PETITIONER INSTEAD OF SHOP NO.4; SHOP NO.5 TO SECOND PETITIONER INSTEAD OF SHOP NO.15; SHOP NO.7 TO THIRD PETITIONER INSTEAD OF SHOP NO.12 AND SHOP NO.4 TO FOURTH PETITIONER INSTEAD OF SHOP NO.13 AND ETC.

¶45

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

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

The petitioners, who are traders carrying on business

¶49

in the APMC Yard, Shivamogga, have approached this

¶50

Court challenging the allotment order dated 15.11.2024 issued by respondent No.3-APMC, whereby though the petitioners were declared successful allottees in the fresh

¶51

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

allotment process undertaken pursuant to the directions of

¶54

this Court in W.P. No.11234/2021, they have been directed to shift from the shop in which they are presently carrying on business to different shop premises. The petitioners seek a mandamus to modify the said allotment and to restore to them the very shops earlier allotted to them on 20.01.2020, contending that they have been carrying on their business therein for several years and that the shifting directed under Annexure-C is arbitrary and unreasonable.

¶55

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶56

and learned counsel for the respondents-APMC.

¶57

The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners, having been allottees under Annexure-A and having again been found eligible in the fresh allotment made under Annexure-C, are entitled to be continued in the same shop premises, especially when some similarly situated allottees

¶58

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

have been permitted to retain their original shops. It is contended that Annexure-C assigns no reasons for directing only the petitioners to shift to new shops, thereby rendering the action discriminatory and violative of Article 14. It is further contended that the petitioners have been carrying on the business in the same premises for more than 5 years, have invested in furniture and fixtures, and have earned goodwill tied to the location of shops. Shifting them to other shops, some of which are smaller in size or situated in the back side portion of the yard would cause financial loss, hardship and loss of established clientele. It is asserted that the respondents have misconstrued the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.11234/2021, which did not mandate the displacement of existing allottees who were again found eligible in the fresh ground.

¶61

Per contra , learned counsel for the

¶62

respondents-APMC justifies the allotment made on 20.01.2020 and contends that the respondents, after

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

following the procedure and in compliance with the directions issued in W.P. No.11234/2021, have allotted commercial shops in APMC yards to different allottees as per the Act and the Regulations and that the petitioners have not shown any malafides on the part of the respondents for this Court to interfere with the impugned allotment.

¶66

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶67

contentions and perused the material on record.

¶68

The earlier allotment dated 20.01.2020 stood

¶69

quashed by this Court in W.P. No.11234/2021 and a fresh allotment pursuant to a new notification has been carried out. The petitioners cannot claim a vested right to be continued in the same shops, merely because they were earlier allottees or on the ground of having carried out business therein for some years. The allotment of commercial shops in an APMC yard is a matter of administrative discretion governed by the applicable

¶70

7 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

regulations, and unless the decision is shown to be mala

¶74

fide or vitiated by patent arbitrariness, this Court will not sit as an appellate authority, over such administrative allotments.

¶75

The petitioners have not demonstrated any

¶76

enforceable right to insist upon retention of the same shop premises, nor have they shown that the fresh allotment is contrary to the Rules. The grievance of hardship, loss of goodwill or inconvenience though understandable, cannot form the basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus to alter an administrative allotment validly made pursuant to the Court directed fresh process. Accordingly the writ petition

¶77

stands dismissed .

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶80

MBM

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

B Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Venkatesh K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Govindaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Nanjundaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkatesh Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Kenchamma Vs the Managing Director Bescom