- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100544 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100544 OF 2017 (APMC-) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. MANIK TRADING COMPANY, PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MAHADEV S/O. LAXMAN HONAGEKAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, C/O MANIK TRADING CO., V9, MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. M/S MANIK S. HONAGEKAR, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI. LAXMAN S/O. SHETTUPPA HONAGEKAR, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, C/O. V9, MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. M/S MORE TRADING COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. SUMAN W/O. CHANDRAKANT MORE, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, C/O. V9, MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. M/S MORE TRADERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. VINAYAK S/O. SAIPRAKASH MORE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, C/O. V9, MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SREEVATSA HEGDE & SRI. ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR, ADVOCATES) GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100544 of 2017 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & MARKETING, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU. 2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, APMC MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, APMC MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, APMC MARKET YARD, BELAGAVI TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B. ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R3; R4 IS DELETED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:28.10.2016 BEARING ORDER NO. 1435/2016-17, PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 THE RESOLUTION NO.9 DATED:06.10.2016 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND THE ORDER DATED:08.12.2016 ORDER BEARING NO. /1691/2016-17 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100544 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated:28.10.2016 bearing order No. 1435/2016-17, produced as per ANNEXURE-A, passed by respondent no.4 the Resolution No.9 dated:06.10.2016 produced as per ANNEXURE-B passed by Respondent No.2 and the order dated:08.12.2016 order bearing No. /1691/2016-17 produced as per ANNEXURE-C passed by Respondent no.2. ii. Any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the ends of justice. 2. The facts in the present matter are more similar to that in W.P.No.100037/2017 which has been disposed of today. Additionally, what is required to be stated as regards to facts is that, after dissolution of M/s.L.O.Bamane, K.M.Honegekar & Co., in the year 1980, there being three partners therein, namely, Bamane family, Honagekar family and More family, all three of them divided the property in plot No.V-9 in 3 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100544 of 2017 equal portions and setup their respective partnership firms carrying on the same business. 3. Bamane family established a partnership firm by name M/s.L O Bamane and Sons, Honagekar’s family established a firm by name M/s.Manik S. Honagekar, which came to be subsequently renamed as M/s.Manik Trading Company and Krishna G. Laxman More established M/s. More Traders, which came to be subsequently renamed as M/s.More Trading Company. 4. Thus, all 3 of them asserted their right in the property to the allotment of which was made in the year 1970 and the sale deed executed in the year 1971. The bifurcation of the properties and the permission to put up a compound wall was also approved by respondent No.2 by resolution dated 05.09.2001, which has been produced along with the petition. 5. It is in that background that action was proposed to be initiated against the petitioners herein by issuing of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100544 of 2017 a notice on 28.10.2016, which ended in order being passed on 08.12.2016. The grounds raised in the notice and the order is more or less similar to that in Writ Petition No.100037/2017 that there is a violation of Rule 17(2)(a)(v) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (for short, ‘the Rules, 2004’) and the provisio to Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marekting (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the Act, 1966’). 6. These aspects have been dealt with by me in detail in the order passed today in WP.No.100037/2017, which would be equally applicable to the present case. As held in the said case, the dissolution of the erstwhile Firm having occurred in the year 1980 and the reconstitution and divisions have taken place thereafter. For the first time action was taken in the year 2016. Despite a resolution having passed by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100544 of 2017 2nd respondent permitting the bifurcation and construction of partition wall in the said property and permitting each of the individual families to start their respective businesses. Having done so, it cannot now be contended by respondent No.2 that after 36 years there is a violation of Section 17(2)(a)(v) or Rule 12 of the Rules, 2004 of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 1966 in as much as, the permission has been granted by the committee itself for the petitioners to conduct their business. These facts being on record and the documents relating thereto also being in the possession of respondent No.2. I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 has initiated action against the petitioners, which can only be termed as an abuse of powers. For obvious reasons, when the petitioners are conducting their business in a profitable manner, it is therefore required of respondent No.1 to take note of the above and initiate such action against respondent No.4 as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1039 WP No. 100544 of 2017 may be necessary in accordance with law. In that background, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-A and Resolution No.9 dated 06.10.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-B and the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-C. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab – upto para 3 CKK – para 4 to end CT-MCK