N Lokesh Vs Agriculture Produce Market Committee

N. LOKESH S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARASHETTIHALLI KOPPALU, HULLEKERE POST, GANDASI HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 119.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, B.H. ROAD, ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.

¶16

SECRETARY,

¶17

AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE B.H. ROAD, ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.APMC(ARASIKERE)/1517/2025-26

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:9405 WP No. 4777 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

DATED 31/1/2026 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ORIGINAL OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. (b) RESTRAIN RESPONDENTS, THEIR OFFICIALS AND ALL OTHER PERSONS/ENTITIES CLAIMING THROUGH RESPONDENTS FROM CAUSING ANY TYPE OF OBSTRUCTION IN THE PETITIONER CARRYING ON THE HOTEL BUSINESS IN THE PREMISES SITUATED WITHIN THE SUB-MARKET YARD AT GANDASI VILLAGE, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner, who was admittedly granted leave and licence by the respondent-APMC to run a canteen in the building, is before this Court being aggrieved by the notice dated 31.01.2026 issued by the respondent-APMC calling upon him to vacate and hand over the premises in his occupation within 15 days.

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that admittedly the premises belong to the respondent-APMC, which is a public premises and without initiating the proceedings as contemplated under law, they cannot call upon the petitioner to vacate as sought to be done in the interim notice and seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9405 WP No. 4777 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-APMC furnishing a memo dated 16.02.2026 along with ten documents submits that petitioner has been granted leave and licence in the year 01.02.2020 and has occupied the same as a licensee which expired on 31.08.2024. A notice dated 30.05.2024 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to vacate and hand over the premises. Even before the same petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.551/2024 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Arasikere, seeking relief of permanent injunction which is still pending consideration and no relief or interim relief is granted in his favour. He submits that amidst this the petitioner himself has executed an undertaking dated 27.10.2024 as per document produced at pages 17 and 18, undertaking to vacate and hand over the premises subject to he being permitted to participate if in the event of the respondent-APMC re-auctioning the premises. He further submits that there are certain developments which compelled the respondent to take action, in that a bus stand is being constructed opposite to the APMC market due to which

¶33

the height of the road is being elevated and the building belonging to respondent-APMC would have to be demolished,

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:9405 WP No. 4777 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

as the same would not be safe for occupation. He submits the building consists of premises in possession of petitioner as well as a post office. He submits that the report in this regard has already been obtained from the Kalpataru Institute of Technology, Tiptur produced at page 20. Assistant Executive Engineer along with the report has stated that the APMC has already passed resolution to demolish the existing building and to put up a new construction. Thus, he submits in the light of these developments, petitioner without revealing these facts has approached this Court. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

Heard and perused the records.

¶39

Though the petitioner seem to be aggrieved by the

¶40

notice at Annexure-A which is dated 31.01.2026, he has not averred anything whatsoever in the petition regarding he having already approached the Civil Court seeking relief of permanent injunction as far back as in the year 2024. He has also not revealed anything about he having given undertaking to vacate the premises as noted above. Be that as it is, the reason for the notice now issued by the respondent-APMC is for

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9405 WP No. 4777 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the compelling circumstances warranting demolition of the existing building in view of the proposed construction of a bus stand opposite to the market yard which would render the present building uninhabitable. In view of this larger interest, and also in view of petitioner having approached the Civil Court, this Court do not see any reason to show any indulgence.

¶44

At this juncture learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent be directed not to precipitate the matter for a period of one month enabling the petitioner to make alternate arrangement to vacate the premises. This submission is taken as an undertaking to this Court.

¶45

Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-APMC not to precipitate the matter for a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, enabling the petitioner to make alternate arrangement.

¶46

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶47

SBN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

N Lokesh v. Agriculture Produce Market Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Lokesh v. Agriculture Produce Market Committee

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

Sri Siddaramaiah Vs Sri Abdul Kareemsab

Mr K a Nasruddin Vs Sri Ahmed Jan

Smt Ramakka Vs Muni Byrappa @ N Ramaiah

Karnataka Lokayuktha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Balaji Shanmuganath Vs Mr Mohammed Ali Asif Mehkri

M/S Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co. Opertive Ltd. Vs the Director