- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13207 WP No. 6382 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6382 OF 2024 (APMC) BETWEEN: M/S KAPALI TRADING CO NO. 29/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD, A P M C YARD, YESHAVANTHAPUR, BENGALURU-560022 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SMT SUJATHA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO. 16/2, RAJABHAVANA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE A P M C MARKET YARD TUMAKURU ROAD, YESHAVANTHAPUR BENGALURU-560022 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13207 WP No. 6382 of 2024 BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE FINAL NOTICE DATED 31/01/2024 IN NO. KRU.MA.E/KRI.U.MA.SA/BEM/MALIGE/6127/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE R3 MARKET COMMITTEE A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. ii) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20/02/2024 IN NO. KRU.MA.E/APMC/BEM/NIYAVI/6420/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE R3 MARKET COMMITTEE, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a Commission Agent as also Importer/Exporter in the market yard at Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru, has called in question the Final Notice dated 31.01.2024 and the Endorsement dated 20.02.2024 [Annexures-D and F] issued by the Market Committee. The impugned Final Notice and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13207 WP No. 6382 of 2024 the Endorsement relate to the Market Committee's claim for a certain amount from the petitioner, the claim is based on the assertion that the petitioner has not paid fee as required for the entire transaction. The Market Committee relies upon certain Gate Passes issued in the petitioner's name to justify dues. 2. Ms. Shilpa Rani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Gate Passes alone cannot be the basis for making a claim as it is a common practice for the farmers get the produce into the market yard giving the name of certain Commission Agents but they do not necessarily sell the produce to this Commission Agent and the petitioner has paid license fee for the produce actually transacted by him. 3. Mr. Nanda Kishore, the learned counsel for the Market Committee, invites this Court's attention to Section 132 of the Karnataka - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13207 WP No. 6382 of 2024 Agricultural Produce Marketing [Regulation and Development] Act, 1966 [for short, 'the Act'] to contend that outcome on the rival claim must turn on examination of factual aspects and the petitioner must therefore avail alternative remedy as is permissible under the afore provisions which contemplate an enquiry and an opportunity of being duly heard. In rejoinder, Ms. Shilpa Rani submits that the Director will be predisposed towards allowing the Market Committee’s claim, and therefore, this Court may not relegate the petitioner to an inquiry by the Director. 4. These submissions are considered. The apprehension that the Director/Authorized Officer will be predetermined or perfunctorily in inquiring is unjustified. The Director must act in law diligently in discharge of the statutory responsibility. If this is so, this Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13207 WP No. 6382 of 2024 detailed inquiry could be so made in the factual matrix. 5. As such, the petitioner must be relegated to avail opportunity that is under Section 132 of the Act. However, this Court must observe that the Director/Authorized Officer must extend all due opportunity of hearing and pass just orders with proper reasons lest inference be drawn against the Director/Authorized Officer inviting even costs if there is failure to consider the petitioner's claim in terms of Section 132 of the Act. 6. Further, this Court must observe that all proceedings under the Final Notice dated 31.01.2024 and the Endorsement dated 20.02.2024 must be deferred by three months so that the petitioner can apply under Section 132 of the Act and seek interim protection and there shall be no precipitation. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13207 WP No. 6382 of 2024 The petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11