- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16929 OF 2021 (APMC) BETWEEN: 1. RAJA RAJESHWARI TRADERS MERCHANTS, NO.416/1, B BLOCK APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU - 570025 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI VEERABHADRASWAMY S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED 66 YEARS. 2. YOGA NARASIMHASWAMY AND CO., MERCHANTS AND COMMISSION AGENTS NO.8, 'B' BLOCK APMC YARD BANDIPALYA, MYSURU - 570 025. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI M TULASI SATHYANARAYANA S/O T N MUNIAN CHETTIAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 3. SHIVALINGESHWARA TRADERS MERCHANTS, NO. 68 'A' BLOCK APMC YARD BANDIPALYA, MYSURU - 570 025. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. D. RAMAKRISHNA S/O K.LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 4. RUCHI TRADING COMPANY MERCHANTS, NO.329/3, A BLOCK APMC YARD BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI B KAILASH KUMAR S/O M. BABULAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 5. RASHI TRADING COMPANY MERCHANTS, NO.21, B BLOCK APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU - 570 025. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. DEEPALI K S D/O SOMASUNDAR K T AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 6. SHANMUGAM INDUSTRIES MERCHANTS NO.1126/3-4 VISHWESHWARANAGRA MYSURU - 560 025 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. M. SHANMUGAM S/O MANIKYAM R/AT 657, 2ND CROSS, KEMBARGERI CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 024. 7. RAGHUVEER TRADING CO., MERCHANTS, NO.160, A BLOCK APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI BHAVANI SINGH S/O RATHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR P2 AND P4; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.01.2023 PETITION INSOFAR AS PETITIONER NOs.1, 3, 5 TO 7 STOOD DISMISSED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M S BUILDING DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 1ST FLOOR SECOND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE MYSURU-NANJANGUD ROAD BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE PRESIDENT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE MYSURU-NANJANGUD ROAD BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025. 5. MURTHY TRADERS MERCHANTS NO.26, A BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI NARAYANAMURTHY. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 6. HARSHITHA ENTERPRISES MERCHANTS NO.145, A BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. K RUDRAVENI. 7. SRI. KRISHNA TRADERS MERCHANTS NO.4, B BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI D DHRUVAKUMAR. 8. SRI BASAVESHWARA TRADERS MERCHANTS NO. 162/2, B BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI MAHADEVASWAMY S B. 9. SRI. ANNAPURNESHWARI TRADERS MERCHANTS WHOLESALE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES YARD BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SANJEEV. 10. B R S TRADING CO., MERCHANTS NO. 149/2, A BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SRINIVASA G. 11. SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHASWAMY MERCHANTS NO. 298, B BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. LAKSHMI. 12. K.V.R. TRADERS MERCHANTS NO.168/2, A BLOCK APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570 025 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.MOHAMMED SHAREED. 13. SHRI VEERABHADRESHWARA ENTERPRISES MERCHANTS NO.90/1, A BLOCK APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570 025 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT.R.S.CHANDANA. 14. SRIKANTESHWARA BANANA FRUITS AND VEGETABLE SHOP MERCHANTS VEGETABLES MARKETING YARD, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570 025 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SRIKANTAMURTHY. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 15. MYSURU TRADERS MERCHANTS, NO.296/2, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570 025 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI BHAGARAMVIL PAIROHITH. 16. VEERABHADRESHWARA TRADING CO MERCHANTS NO.95/1, B BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570 025 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI ASHOK KUMAR K V. 17. DEVAPRAKASH TRADERS MERCHANTS NO.116/1, A BLOCK APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570 025 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.M.S.ANAND. 18. BENAKA TRADERS MERCHANTS NO.141, A BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570 025 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.G .RAMA. 19. SRI.BASAVESHWARA TRADING CO MERCHANTS, NO.144/A, B BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570 025 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. NAGENDRASWAMY. 20. SRI.GOWRI GANESHA TRADERS MERCHANTS NO.342/1, B BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU-570 025 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.P.RAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA., AGA FOR R1, R2; SRI.T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. ABHIJITH HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R10 TO R14 AND R16 TO R20; SRI. D.R. RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R15; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENTS NO.4, 6, 7 & 9; NOTICE TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE R3 AND R4 TO ISSUE FRESH LIST AS PER THE SENIORITY LIST STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALLOTMENT RULES VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 ORAL ORDER A set of seven petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the Notification dated 22.07.2021 [Annexure-A] issued by the third respondent. The third respondent has issued the impugned Notification allotting certain sites in Block A and Block B of Bandipalya Market Yard, Mysuru. However, the petitioners, except the second and the fourth petitioner, have got the petition at their instance dismissed vide Order dated 18.01.2023, and as such, only these two petitioners who are now mentioned by name in the course of this order prosecute this petition. 2. M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. [the second petitioner] has submitted its application for allotment of a site indicating multiple choice of sites. This petitioner has indicated the site in No.A-316/B as its first choice, the site in No. B-18 as the second choice, the site in No. B-86 as the third choice and the site No. B-104 as the fourth choice. M/s. Ruchi - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 Trading Company [the fourth petitioner], has filed its application for allotment of only the site in No. B-64. The third respondent has allotted sites in terms of Annexure-A based on seniority. M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. is ranked '72' and M/s. Ruchi Trading Company is ranked '58'. The third respondent has allotted the site in No. B-434 to M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. but not a site of its choice. Similarly, the third respondent has allotted to M/s. Ruchi Trading Company the site in No. D-56 which is not its choice. 3. M/s. Ruchi Trading Company’s choice [the site in No. B-64] is allotted to the fifteenth respondent, which is ranked '158' as against M/s. Ruchi Trading Company which is ranked '58'. M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. cannot have any grievance with the allotment of either the site in Nos.A-316/B or B-18 as it is allotted to those who are seniors in the Seniority List, and therefore, its grievance is as against - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 allotment of sites in Nos.B-86 and B-104 to the twelfth and thirteenth respondents who are ranked '102' and '104' respectively below in the Seniority List. The question, therefore, is: [a] Whether this Court must interfere directing the third respondent to allot to M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co either site in Nos.B-86 or B-104 instead of site in No. B-434, and [b] Whether the third respondent must be directed to allot to M/s. Ruchi Trading Company’s choice site in No. B-64 instead of D-56. Sri M. Krishnappa, the learned counsel for these two petitioners, Sri T Swaroop, the learned counsel for the third respondent, Sri D R Rajashekarappa, the learned counsel for the fifteenth respondent, and Sri Abhijit Haranahalli, the learned counsel for the twelfth and thirteenth respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition based on these questions. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 4. Sri M Krishnappa submits that M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co. should have been granted either site in Nos.B-86 or B-104 in terms of the choice stated in the application because this Entity is ranked much higher than both the twelfth and the thirteenth respondents, and that it would be permissible in terms of the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing [Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yard] Rules, 2004 [for short, ‘the Allotment Rules'] to apply making multiple choices and the allotment must be decided based on the seniority. 5. Sri T Swaroop, the learned counsel for the third respondent, who is supported by Sri Abhijit Haranahalli, submits that in terms of Form No.3 of the Allotment Rules, an applicant must apply for a specific site and has no liberty to submit the application showing choices, especially multiple choices. The learned counsels invite this Court's attention to Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules which refers - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 to Form No.3 and Clause 12 in Form No.3 as also the terms of the Notification dated 22.07.2021 [Annexure- A] to underscore that an applicant must apply for a particular site. 6. Sri T Swaroop, however, cannot controvert that even if this proposition were to be applied without a contest, M/s. Ruchi Trading Company, which is ranked higher than the fifteenth respondent, should have been allotted site in No. B-64 as it has applied only for this site. However, Sri D.R. Rajashekarappa, the learned counsel for the fifteenth respondent, submits that this Court must not interfere with the allotment of the site in No.B-64 to the fifteenth respondent because it is after due exercise by the Committee and also because the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement is executed and registered with the fifteenth respondent paying all amounts therefor. The learned counsel submits that but for the interim orders in the present proceedings, the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 possession of the site would also have been made over by the third respondent. 7. This Court must examine whether it would be open to an applicant, which is applying for the allotment of either a site/shop/godown/shop- cum-godown, to apply making a choice or multiple choices, and this examination must be in the light of the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in 'Mohammed Shah Nawaz v. State of Karnataka, Department of Cooperative, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others'1. This Court in this decision, considering Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules, has opined that an applicant can apply for a particular site/shop/godown/shop-cum-godown only, and the allotment would only be on offer which is accepted when the Earnest Money Deposit equivalent to 25 percent of the value of the site/shop/godown/shop- cum-godown is deposited. This Court has emphasized 1 ILR 2019 KAR 2317 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 that the Market Committee is not vested with an unfettered discretion to allot site independent of this requirement based on seniority. 8. This Court's reasoning and conclusion as reads as under: " 30. From bare reading, it is apparent that the allotment of sites involves an offer. The use of the word 'offer' by the Legislature cannot be without significance. If the word 'offer' is read with reference to the provisions of sub-Rule (3) and (4), it is apparent that the applicant is required to make an application in respect of a site or a godown or a shop etc. It is relevant to note that the words site/godown/shop is used in the singular and not described in a pluralistic sense. This conclusion is further strengthened by the imposition of the condition of a pre-deposit in the form of an EMD equivalent to 25% of the value of the site or the godown or the shop or the shop cum godown. This interpretation draws further sustenance from the phrase "as the case may be". On a cumulative reading of the provisions of sub- Rules (1) and (3) of Rule 3, the only conclusion that one can draw is that an applicant can make an application in respect of a "particular" - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 site/shop/godown, only, thereby meaning that the applicant would be required to identify the particular site or shop or godown or shop cum godown in his application. If this interpretation is read with the word 'offer', then the inescapable conclusion is that the offer is accepted by the trader when he identifies the site or the shop or the godown or the shop cum godown by the number assigned to it and further makes a pre-deposit in the form of EMD equivalent to 25% of its value or as stated in sub-Rule (3) "shall not be less than 25% of the value of the site, godown, shop or shop cum godown, as the case may be". 31. If this be the inference, that one can draw from the provision and if this be the interpretation that one can place after a cumulative reading of the provision of sub- Rules (1) and (3) of Rule 3, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there can be no question of any unfettered discretion being vested in the Market Committee i.e., respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to allot any site to anyone whomsoever they deem fit. Even if such member is not an applicant in respect of that site or shop etc. The offer by the market committee by the sub-Rule (1) stands accepted - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 in the form of a pre- deposit or as prescribed under sub-Rule (3) an "initial deposit" of not less than 25% of the value of the site or shop, etc. If that be the case, the application by the licenced trader shall be considered only as against the site for which the application is made. 32. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above can be the only interpretation that can be placed for, if any other interpretation more so as canvassed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, if is accepted, it would open the field for manipulation and arbitrariness by the Market Committees in collusion with ineligible applicants. 33. Hence, in view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the consideration of the application by the Market Committee, in respect of an application in response to the offer of allotment by the Market Committee shall be restricted to the site or to the shop or to the godown or to the shop cum godown in respect of which the application is made. The Rules do not envisage the allotment of a site or shop or godown or shop cum godown other than the one applied for and consequently the implication is that no discretion is vested in - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 the market committee to make an allotment of a shop or site or godown or shop cum godown independent of the contract between the Committee and the applicant." [emphasis supplied] Sri M. Krishnappa submits that if this proposition holds good, there could be a deleterious effect resulting in absurdity. The learned counsel elaborates stating that if the applicant's choice is limited to a particular site as stated, the applications will be filed only for a certain set of sites while none may apply for the other sites. 9. This Court does not see any absurdity because if multiple applicants have filed their applications for a particular site/godown/shop/shop- cum-godown, who amongst them must be entitled to the allotment will be decided based on seniority amongst them, and insofar as those sites/shops/godowns/shops-cum-godowns for which no application is filed, the Market Committee [the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 third respondent], will have to issue fresh Notification. There could be hardship because the allotment will happen in a staggered manner, but then that is no reason to hold that it leads to absurdity. The allotment is done with some hardship in a staggered manner is no reason for this Court to take a different view than what is enunciated. This Court concurs with the view as is expressed afore. 10. If this proposition holds, M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co., cannot have grievance with the allotment of either site in Nos.B-86 or B-104 to the twelfth and the thirteenth respondents though they are ranked much lower in the Ranking List because the application should have been considered only for the site in No.A-316/B which is allotted to an applicant who is ranked at Sl. No.4. The third respondent allotted the site in No. B-434, and because this allotment is not challenged, this Court is of the view that such allotment must prevail and - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 must not be disturbed. Consequently, the third respondent will have to execute all necessary documents and put this petitioner in possession of this site. The first question is answered accordingly. 11. As regards the fifteenth respondent, the law must be applied if it remains undisputed that M/s. Ruchi Trading Company had only applied for the site in No. B-64 and is ranked higher at '58' than the fifteenth respondent who is ranked at '158'. The allotment of the site in No.B-64 to the fifteenth respondent cannot prevail only because the Lease- cum-Sale Agreement is already executed or because it is asserted that there is due consideration. This Court must observe that the due consideration argument is rendered tenuous in the circumstances where it is undisputed that M/s. Ruchi Trading Company had only applied for the site in No.B-64 and is ranked much higher than the fifteenth respondent. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 12. If M/s. Ruchi Trading Company is thus entitled to site in No.B-64, the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement executed in favour of the fifteenth respondent must be cancelled and such deed must be executed in favour of M/s. Ruchi Trading Company with liberty to the fifteenth respondent to seek consequential allotment and execution of Lease- cum-Sale Agreement for site in No.D-56. Further, M/s. Ruchi Trading Company must be called upon to pay only such deposits and cost as required for the allotment and execution of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement for the site in No.B-64 and all other costs must be absorbed by either the third respondent or the fifteenth respondent depending on whether the fifteenth respondent makes a request for allotment of site in No.D-56. The fifteenth respondent must exercise the liberty as is now reserved within a reasonable time from the date of receipt of a certified - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 copy of this order. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER The petition at the instance of M/s. Yoga Narasimha Swamy and Co., is rejected, and the petition at the instance of M/s. Ruchi Trading Company is allowed with the following directions: [i] The third respondent is directed to issue allotment letter and execute the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement in favour of M/s. Ruchi Trading Company for the site in No.B-64 subject to receiving all deposits and costs therefor and upon adjustment of all the amounts already paid. [ii] The fifteenth respondent, whose present allotment and the Lease-cum- Sale Agreement must yield, is reserved with liberty to file a representation - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 with the third respondent for allotment of site in No.D-56 and execution of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement therefor subject to paying all deposits and costs. [iii] The fifteenth respondent is reserved with liberty to make such representation within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [iv] M/s Ruchi Trading Company shall deposit the balance amount in terms of the Allotment Rules but reckoned from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [v] It is needless to observe that if the fifteenth respondent exercises the liberty as is now reserved, there shall be due set off to all the amounts that are paid so far, but excluding the cost - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:15623 WP No. 16929 of 2021 that is incurred in the execution of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement for site in No.B-64. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6