- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38369 W.P. No.18146/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.18146/2021 (APMC) BETWEEN: DALALARU SAGATHU FRUITS AND VEGETABLES MARUKATTE PRANGANA NO.6543, KAMATGERI OPPOSITE TO BELLIRAMA TEMPLE MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU 570001 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR B AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, II RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU 560001. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITEE MARKET YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU 570025 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. DALALARU, SAGATHU FRUITS VEGITABLES MARUKATTEE PRANGANA, BANDIPALYA Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38369 W.P. No.18146/2021 MYSURU REP BY IMRAN PASHA. 5. GLOBAL TRADER VARTHAKARU KUNTHARUNAM PRAVEEN NO.64, A-BLOCK, APMC YARD BENDIPALYA, MYSURU 570025. 6. YASHWANT TRADERS VARTHAKARU MAHADEVAIAH NO.72/2 A BLOCK, APMC YARD BENDIPALYA, BANDIPALYA MYSORE 570025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHOJE GOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADV., FOR R3 SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADV., FOR R4 & R6 R5 SERVED) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2021 VIDE BEARING NO.KRUMAE/ABHIVE- 2/LIKUM.SE/224/2021, PASSED BY THE R2, IN RESPECT OF SITE NO.B-507, C-2 AND C-12 IN FAVOR OF R4 TO 6 AT ANNEXURE-E & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38369 W.P. No.18146/2021 ORAL ORDER At outset, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was pressing this writ petition only insofar as his claim for allotment of site No.C-12 under Scheduled Tribes category and was not pressing his claim insofar as other sites in said category or under physically handicapped category. 2. Challenging order dated 22.07.2021 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-E insofar as allotment of site no.C-12 to respondent no.6 instead of petitioner, and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to allot site no.C-12 to petitioner herein, this writ petition is filed. 3. It was submitted that in pursuance of notification dated 02.02.2021 issued by respondent no.3-Market Committee calling for applications for allotment of shops, sites and godowns, petitioner had filed application. It was submitted that as per notification at Annexure-C, reservation of sites was provided. It was submitted that for Scheduled Tribes, sites no.C-1, C-11, C-12, D-34, D-36. B-419, B-425, B-309/A and B- 317 were reserved. Petitioner had mentioned site no.C-12 also in order of preference. It was submitted that petitioner had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38369 W.P. No.18146/2021 complied with other requirements while filing application. It was submitted respondent no.3 had thereafter prepared merit list of applicants for allotment. It was submitted that seniority in date of holding of licence and market fee paid for 3 years preceding date of notification were basis for allotment of merit marks. As per Annexure-D, petitioner's name appeared at Sl.No.70 with merit marks of 140. However, in column for sites preferred, site no.C-12 though specifically opted by petitioner, was omitted. It was further submitted that name of respondent no.6 appeared at Sl.no.110 with merit marks of 66. It was thus submitted that respondent no.6 was lower in merit vis-à-vis petitioner. It was submitted that since respondent no.3 had failed to take note of fact that petitioner had applied for site no.C-12 also in order of preference but which was not taken note while preparing merit list, consideration of petitioner's claim for site no.C-12 was illegally ignored and while passing order of allotment at Annexure-E, petitioner was allotted site no.B-419 instead of site no.C-12. It was contended that site no.B-419 was not included in petitioner's preferential choice. On other hand, though respondent no.6 was lower in merit than petitioner, was allotted site no.C-12. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38369 W.P. No.18146/2021 Referring to applications filed by petitioner as well as respondent no.6, it was submitted that while petitioner had not opted for site no.B-419, respondent no.6 also had opted for site no.C1 only and had not opted for site no.C-12 at all. Therefore, order of allotment of site no.C-12 to favour of respondent no.6 was contrary to law and sought for quashing. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2, Sri A.C.Balaraj, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Smt.Shilparani, learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 6 opposed writ petition. 5. It was submitted that as per merit list prepared, petitioner's candidature was considered in respect of sites no.A- 273, C-2, C-1 and C-11. Since petitioner's claim insofar as said sites was lower in merit, allotment was confirmed in favour of applicants, higher in merit. On said ground, writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 sought to contend that petitioner had indicated preference insofar as 5 sites but paid EMD amount for only one site. Therefore, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38369 W.P. No.18146/2021 petitioner's application was defective. On said ground, sought for justifying allotment in favour of respondent no.6. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. From above petitioner's specific grievance against order of allotment at Annexure-E is consideration of claim of respondent no.6 who was lower in merit than petitioner for allotment of site no.C-12 overlooking preference of petitioner. Perusal of application filed by petitioner for allotment produced by respondent no.6 along with statement of objections, as Annexure-R2 would indicate that petitioner had mentioned preference as follows: "A-273, C-2, C-1, C-11 and C-12 under physically handicapped and Schedule Tribes category". 8. There is no condition in notification at Annexure-C limiting number of preferences. There is no condition in said notification for requiring payment of as many EMDs as sites preferred. To query about entitlement for allotment, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that an applicant would be entitled for allotment of one site only. Thus, payment of single EMD along with application would suffice. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38369 W.P. No.18146/2021 9. As per merit list of applicants, petitioner's merit marks is 140 whereas that of respondent no.6 is 66. Therefore, petitioner would be higher in merit than respondent no.6. It is not case of respondent no.6 that any other applicant higher in merit than petitioner had opted for site no.C-12. Such being case, petitioner's candidature ought to have been considered for site no.C-12. Thus merit ranking list at Annexure-D omitting petitioner's preference insofar as site no.C-12 would be defective and same apparently has resulted in improper consideration and allotment of site no.C-12 to respondent no.6. Same being contrary to manner of selection as mentioned in notification and allotment of site Rules, interference would be warranted. 10. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Order of allotment at Annexure-E insofar as petitioner at Sl.no.64 and respondent no.6 at Sl.no.101 is quashed. Respondent no.3 is directed to allot site no.C-12 to petitioner within period of one month from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On receipt of said allotment order, petitioner would be bound to comply with requirement for payment of remaining amount as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38369 W.P. No.18146/2021 per Rules. Liberty would be reserved to respondent no.6 to pursue with respondent no.3 for allotment of any other site if found eligible and meritorious or seek for refund of amount paid by respondent no.6. 11. In view of disposal of writ petition, IA No.1/2025 is disposed of as a consequence. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23