- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.33090 OF 2024 (APMC) BETWEEN: 1. B. NAGARAJ S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PROPRIETOR SIDDESHWARA BALEKAYI MANDI, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 2. MEHABOOB ALI KHAN S/O BASHEER AHAMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR S.M. PLANTAIN MANDI, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 3. H.C. GANESH S/O H.N. CHINNAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SRI VINAYAKA BALEKAYI MANDI, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 4. H. NAGESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR JAI HANUMAN BALEKAYI MANDI APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024 2. THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMPANY BY ITS SECRETARY (GRADE-I) APMC YARD, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. 4. R. MANJUNATH MAJOR IN AGE PROPRIETOR VENKATESHWARA BALEKAYI MANDI, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 5. DINESH .B MAJOR IN AGE PROPRIETOR CHANNABASAVESHWARA TARKARI MANDI, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 6. MANJUNATH S.B. PROPRIETOR M C B TARKARI MANDI, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 7. PAKKEERASWAMY PROPRIETOR SRI KARIBASAVESHWARA TARKARI MANDI, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 8. B. KISHORE PROPRIETOR TIRUMALA VEGETABLES, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 9. GOVINDARAJU PROPRIETOR PAVAN TARKARI MANDI, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 10. M.J. BASAVARAJ PROPRIETOR ANNAPOORNESHWARI VEGETABLES, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024 11. M.H. ANNAPPA SRI HULIGESHWARI BALEHANNINA MANDI, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 12. RAVINDRA NERALE PROPRIETOR M/S. NAGARATHNAM TRADERS, APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; NOTICES TO R-4 TO R-6 AND R-8 TO R-12 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO MODIFY THE ALLOTMENT ORDER DATED 15.11.2024 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C IN KRU.UMASA/SHI/GLF/1292/2024-25 AND THEREBY DIRECT THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO ALLOT THE SAME SHOPS TO THE PETITIONERS i.e. SHOP NO. 6 TO FIRST PETITIONER INSTEAD OF SHOP NO.4; SHOP NO.5 TO SECOND PETITIONER INSTEAD OF SHOP NO.15; SHOP NO.7 TO THIRD PETITIONER INSTEAD OF SHOP NO.12 AND SHOP NO.4 TO FOURTH PETITIONER INSTEAD OF SHOP NO.13 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are traders carrying on business in the APMC Yard, Shivamogga, have approached this Court challenging the allotment order dated 15.11.2024 issued by respondent No.3-APMC, whereby though the petitioners were declared successful allottees in the fresh - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024 allotment process undertaken pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P. No.11234/2021, they have been directed to shift from the shop in which they are presently carrying on business to different shop premises. The petitioners seek a mandamus to modify the said allotment and to restore to them the very shops earlier allotted to them on 20.01.2020, contending that they have been carrying on their business therein for several years and that the shifting directed under Annexure-C is arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents-APMC. 3. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners, having been allottees under Annexure-A and having again been found eligible in the fresh allotment made under Annexure-C, are entitled to be continued in the same shop premises, especially when some similarly situated allottees - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024 have been permitted to retain their original shops. It is contended that Annexure-C assigns no reasons for directing only the petitioners to shift to new shops, thereby rendering the action discriminatory and violative of Article 14. It is further contended that the petitioners have been carrying on the business in the same premises for more than 5 years, have invested in furniture and fixtures, and have earned goodwill tied to the location of shops. Shifting them to other shops, some of which are smaller in size or situated in the back side portion of the yard would cause financial loss, hardship and loss of established clientele. It is asserted that the respondents have misconstrued the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.11234/2021, which did not mandate the displacement of existing allottees who were again found eligible in the fresh ground. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-APMC justifies the allotment made on 20.01.2020 and contends that the respondents, after - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024 following the procedure and in compliance with the directions issued in W.P. No.11234/2021, have allotted commercial shops in APMC yards to different allottees as per the Act and the Regulations and that the petitioners have not shown any malafides on the part of the respondents for this Court to interfere with the impugned allotment. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 6. The earlier allotment dated 20.01.2020 stood quashed by this Court in W.P. No.11234/2021 and a fresh allotment pursuant to a new notification has been carried out. The petitioners cannot claim a vested right to be continued in the same shops, merely because they were earlier allottees or on the ground of having carried out business therein for some years. The allotment of commercial shops in an APMC yard is a matter of administrative discretion governed by the applicable - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49586 WP No. 33090 of 2024 regulations, and unless the decision is shown to be mala fide or vitiated by patent arbitrariness, this Court will not sit as an appellate authority, over such administrative allotments. 7. The petitioners have not demonstrated any enforceable right to insist upon retention of the same shop premises, nor have they shown that the fresh allotment is contrary to the Rules. The grievance of hardship, loss of goodwill or inconvenience though understandable, cannot form the basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus to alter an administrative allotment validly made pursuant to the Court directed fresh process. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54