- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10921 WP No. 6409 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6409 OF 2025 (APMC-) BETWEEN: M/S. H. R. ENTERPRISES (UN REGISTERED FIRM) NO.43, SHOP NO.8, SHREE RAMA BADAVANE, CHANDAPURA MINE ROAD, ANEKAL, BENGALURU 560 106, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR C.H. RAHAMATH, S/O CHAMAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHILPA RANI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, 2ND RAJABHAVANA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. THE AGIRCULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, MAHATMA GANDHI COMPLEX, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10921 WP No. 6409 of 2025 YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560 022 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.VAHEEDA., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.05.2020 NO.KRU BEARING HU MA SA (BEM)/MALIGE/794/2020-21 AS PER ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AND ORDER DATED 14.01.2022 BEARING NO.KRUMAYI/ABIVI 1/194/APPEALU/ 2020 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J, AND DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE BALANCE DEPOSIT AND HAND OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE ALLOTTED OF SHOP TO THE PETITIONER FOR A PERIOD OF 55 MONTHS; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATIONS DATED 06.05.2020 AND 05.06.2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-E AND F RESPECTIVELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10921 WP No. 6409 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has impugned the second respondent's order dated 14.01.2022 [Annexure-J] while seeking directions to the respondents to consider its representations as per Annexures-E and F which are submitted in the year 2020. The second respondent's order dated 14.01.2022 is in appeal as against the third respondent's order dated 29.05.2020 [Annexure-G]. The petitioner in challenging these two orders is seeking time to deposit the allotment price with interest. Mr. T. Swaroop, the learned counsel who is permitted to take notice for the third respondent, submits that the petitioner has filed a review petition against the second respondent's order dated 14.01.2022 under Section 126 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing [Regulations and Development] Act, 1966 and the pleadings are completed, but the review petition is not yet decided. The learned counsel emphasizes that with the review - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10921 WP No. 6409 of 2025 petition pending consideration, the petitioner cannot sustain the present writ petition. Ms. Vaheeda, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the first and second respondents, is heard. In the light of this rebuttal for final disposal, this Court must opine that if the petitioner has already availed statutory remedy as against the impugned orders dated 29.05.2020 and 14.01.2022, must await the outcome in such proceedings before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and because the review petition filed by the petitioner is pending consideration, this Court must call upon the authority to dispose of the pending petition expeditiously with the petitioner contending that it has not been informed about the next date of hearing. In the light of the afore, the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10921 WP No. 6409 of 2025 ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order with the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Department of Co-operation, Bengaluru within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof with a request for early hearing. [b] If the petitioner avails this liberty, the Additional Chief Secretary, is called upon to take all measures as would be necessary for expeditious disposal of the review petition, and in any event, within an outer limit of six [6] months. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA