- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 17773 OF 2025 (APMC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 27494 OF 2025 (APMC) IN WP No. 17773/2025 BETWEEN: SHREE BHAGAVATHI AMMAN FRUITS COMMISSION AGENT, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. P JAYASHREE, W/O BALACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SHOP NO.53, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 100, REGISTERED UNDER APMC 1968 ACT. …PETITIONER [BY SRI M.R.RAJGOPAL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADV. FOR PETITIONER] AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 3 . 4. 5. 6. SPECIAL APMC FOR FRUITS, FLOWERS AND VEGETABLES, AGRAHARA, TANK BUND ROAD, BINNYPETE, BENGALURU - 560 023, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. M/s. MUNIRAJU TRADERS COMMISSION AGENT, ALLOTTEE OF SHOP NO.E-32, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560100, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, HARISHANKAR B., M/s. KAPILA TRADERS, COMMISSION AGENT, ALLOTTEE OF SHOP NO.F-52, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 100, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHREENIVAS S., M/s. SINGH INTERNATIONAL, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. UMA BHALLA, W/O AMANDEEP SINGH BHALLA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O AJMERA INFINITY, D-1102, 11TH FLOOR, NEELADRI ROAD, OPP. McDONALD, PHASE-1, ELECTRONICS CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI D.S. MANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI CHINMAY KURANDWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6] - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION NO.17773/2025 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.HAHUMATHA(VI)KRUVUMASA(BEN)/2036/2024-25 DATED 01.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., IN WP NO.27494/2025: BETWEEN: 1 . M/S RAKSHA INTERNATIONAL FRUIT CO., REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. RAKSHA R, D/O MUNIRAMU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O SHOP NO.C-24, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. 2. 3. M/S SNEHA INTERNATIONAL FRUIT CO., REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. SNEHA M, D/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, C/O SHOP NO.C-24, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 100. M/S A.R.S.TRADERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.M.AYYAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, C/O M/S AMEER FRUITS, C-45, APMC YARD, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 4. M/S M.E.S. FRUITS CO., REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. MANIVEL IYYAN, S/O IYYAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, C/O H-27, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. 5. M/S MAHARAJA FRUIT CO, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.BHASKAR R, S/O RAJA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, C/O H-34, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. 6. M/S VIJAY FRUIT TRADERS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. SEETHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, G-06, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. 7. M/S M.E.FRUITS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.M.EZHUMALAI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, C/O C-9, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. 8. M/S SRI.GURUVAYURAPPAN FRUITS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.N.BALACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O 1-53, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. 9. 10. M/S SRI.MOURYA ADITYA FRUITS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. DHANASEKHAR MURUGESAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, C/O NO.1-56, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. M/s KANAAN FRUITS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI KARTHIKEYAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, C/O N.I-56, SINGENA AGRAHARA, SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 100. 11. M/S SRI SUDHARSHAN CHAKRA FRUITS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.MANIKANDAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, C/O 1-53, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 100. 12. M/S MEENAKSHI AMMAN FRUITS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT.M.CHITRA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, C/O I-50, SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. ALL PETITIONERS ARE UN-REGISTERED FIRMS. (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE) ….. PETITIONERS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF CO.OPERATION, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. SPECIAL APMC FOR FRUITS, FLOWERS AND VEGETABLES, AGRAHARA, TANK BUND ROAD, BINNYPETE, BENGALURU 560 023, REPRESENTATION BY ITS SECRETARY 4. M/S MUNIRAJU TRADERS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.B.HARI SHANKAR, S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.47, MOODALAPPA STREET, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU 560 004. 5. M/S.KAPILA TRADERS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.S.SHREENIVAS, S/O G.SUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.132, 3RD CROSS, AKKIPETE, CHICKPET (PO), BENGALURU 560 053 6. M/S SINGH INTERNATIONAL, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT. UMA BHALLA, AGED MAJOR, C/O SHOP NO.E-08, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 SINGENA AGRAHARA SUB MARKET YARD, HUSKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 100. …..RESPONDENTS [BY SRI BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI D.S.MANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI CHINMAY KURANDWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6] THIS WRIT PETITION NO.27494/2025 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. HAHUMATHA(VI)KRUVUMASA(BEN)/2036/2024-25 DTD. 01.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS ARE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.09.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER Challenging notification bearing no.HaHuMaTha(Vi) KruVuMaSa(Ben)/2036/2024-25 dated 01.03.2025 issued by respondent no.3 at Annexure-B and seeking for direction respondents to issue fresh notification for allotment of shops no.F52, F56 and E32 in Singena Agrahara Sub-Market Yard, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District, in accordance with Rule 3 (2), CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 these writ petitions are filed. In W.P.no.27494/2025, an additional prayer for quashing allotment letters dated 18.06.2025 issued by respondent no.3 in favour of respondents no.4, 5 and 6 as per Annexures-H, H1 and H2 respectively is also sought. 2. Sri MR Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Shilpa Rani, advocate for petitioners submitted, petitioners were licence holders/market functionaries in respondent no.3 ('APMC', for short) since many years. On 02.03.2025, APMC got published notification dated 01.03.2025 in Samyuktha Karnataka, Kannada daily newspaper, which was not widely circulated in market area, calling for applications from eligible market functionaries for allotment of shops no.F52, F56 and E32 in APMC. 3. It was submitted, Rule 3 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 ('Rules' for short) mandates that notification calling for allotment of shops was required to be given due publicity by specifying location, number of sites/shops/godowns etc., by stipulating last date for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 submission of application by affixing copy of notification on notice board of APMC and publication in not less than two Kannada daily newspapers of wide circulation in market area. It was submitted, clause (2) of Circular dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-G) issued by DMA, mandated publication to be in two Kannada Daily Newspapers having wide publication in market area and APMC was required to obtain prior approval from Director, Department of Information and Publicity ('DIP', for short) for publication. 4. It was submitted, publication of notification in Samyuktha Karnataka and Hosa Diganta, newspapers which did not have wide circulation in market area led to most of traders being unaware of notification and thereby preventing them from filing application. It was submitted, fact that only 17 applications were received in a market yard having over thousand market functionaries was indicative of same. Relying upon decision of this Court in Sri Venkatesh v. Sri P. Subbaiah & Anr. reported in ILR 2007 KAR 3912, it was submitted, this Court had held, word 'daily newspaper' should be understood to mean not only a newspaper which is circulated on all seven days of week, but also should be of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 repute, published as morning edition. It was further held, publication in evening editions or in newspapers which are not seriously taken, object and purpose of publication would not be served and would end up as an empty formality. 5. It was submitted, APMC has been consistently publishing notifications in Prajavani, Kannada Daily Newspaper and deviated only insofar as impugned notification. Same not only violated legitimate expectation of petitioners, but also indicated collusion between APMC and allottees. It was submitted, in their objection statement, respondents had merely stated that DIP was informed. Thus there was failure to produce material to establish recording of satisfaction by competent authority about Samyukta Karnataka and Hosa Digantha Newspapers having wide circulation. 6. It was further submitted, clause (4) of Circular at Annexure-G mandated publication of notification on Notice Board of APMC as well as Bangalore Fruit Commission Agents Association ('Association' for short). Likewise, clause (7) required providing 5 days time to file objections to merit list, consider objections and where necessary to rectify errors and in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 other cases to issue endorsements to objectors. There was no material to establish compliance with said requirement. 7. It was further submitted, this Court by order dated 29.06.2020 passed in WP no.7197/2020 connected with WP no.6772/2020, directed appointment of Administrator for APMC, to manage day-to-day administration of APMC without taking any policy decisions. Said direction included a direction to conduct elections to APMC immediately after COVID-19 exigency. Relying on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75; D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in (1987) 1 SCC 378; Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336; Channakeshwavaswamy Temple v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Endowments reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3070 and Vasavi Traders v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1982 SCC OnLine Kar 33, it was submitted, issuance of notification calling for application for allotment of shops would not fall within day-to-day administration and therefore notification was liable to be quashed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 8. It was submitted, even on merits, process of allotment suffered from various grave irregularities. It was submitted, on 07.03.2025, a complaint (Annexure-C) was submitted that certain allottees had paid only user fees, which could not be equated with market fee and filed applications for allotment, claiming higher merit referring to same. 9. On said complaint, process was subjected to enquiry. It was submitted, resultant Enquiry Report (Annexure- F) submitted by Chief Accountant of APMC to respondent no.2 ('DMA' for short), found that M/s Banashankari Fruits and Manjunath Traders had manipulated sales records to spike their merit for allotment, even though said applicants were ineligible. This would indicate process of allotment as faulty. Instead of abandoning allotment process, authorities proceeded with allotment based on merit amongst applicants by sidelining two applicants identified as ineligible in Annexure-F report. It was submitted, when enquiry had not certified eligibility of other applicants, action of respondents in continuing allotment process with remaining applicants was illegal. Therefore, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 petitioners got such allottees impleaded as respondents no.4 to 6 and are challenging allotment in their favour. 10. It was submitted, in view of report finding irregularities in process of allotment, it was incumbent upon authorities to have abandoned process and begun afresh. Failure had caused petitioners to approach this Court. It was submitted, above circumstances, mandated this Court to call for records and examine same for irregularities. 11. It was submitted, in its statement of objections, respondent no.6 had stated that its name was at Sl.no.1 in merit list of applicants produced as Annexure-R3 dated 10.06.2025. Though, petitioners had questioned said list in this petition filed on 19.06.2025 and this Court on 23.06.2025, had directed APMC not to give effect to allotment letters, APMC had executed Lease-cum-Sale Agreements and got them registered in apparent violation of interim order. On above grounds, learned Senior counsel sought for allowing writ petitions. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 12. On other hand, Sri Bhojegowda T. Koller, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 opposed petition. 13. Likewise, Sri T. Swaroop, learned counsel for respondent no.3 opposing writ petition submitted, as required under Rule 3 of Rules, on 01.03.2025, APMC had written to DIP about publication of notification in two Kannada Newspapers. Thereafter, notification at Annexure-B dated 01.03.2025 was published in Samyuktha Karnataka and Hosa Digantha, Kannada Daily Newspapers on 02.03.2025. As a measure of abundance and though not required, copy of notification was also sent to Association on 03.03.2025 for circulating information among members. 14. Thus, wide publicity was ensured. It was submitted, 18 applications for allotment were received. In meanwhile on 07.03.2025, one Rajendra filed complaint with respondents no.1 and 2 alleging malpractice by applicants Banashankari Fruits and M/s Manjunatha Traders. On receipt, respondent no.2 ordered enquiry. Enquiry officer, submitted report as per Annexure-F on 21.05.2025 stating that Manjunatha Traders and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 Banashankari Fruits ought not to be considered for allotment. Report specifically stated that excluding said applicants, merit list could be considered. Therefore merit list was published on 10.06.2025 and copy thereof forwarded to DMA on 11.06.2025, who accorded approval under Rule 9(2) of Rules on 17.06.2025. 15. It was submitted, petitioner had not filed objections against merit list. Even in writ petition filed on 19.06.2025, petitioner did not disclose when and how he became aware of irregularities. It was submitted, petitioner had not even filed application for allotment. It was submitted, grievance espoused by petitioner was solely against Rajendra Traders and Banashankari Fruits. Only in rejoinder petitioner added grounds against respondents no.4 to 6. It was submitted, along with memo dated 17.09.2025, list of Newspapers accredited by DIP was produced including both newspapers in which impugned notification was published. Thus, there was no irregularity or illegality in process of allotment, therefore petition was liable to be dismissed. 16. Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri DS Manjegowda, advocate for respondents - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 no.4 and 5 submitted main ground of challenge against notification at Annexure-B and letters of allotment issued in favour of respondents no.4 to 6 was failure by APMC to ensure wide publicity to notification as mandated under Rule 3 of Rules. It was submitted, document no.5 produced along with application filed by respondents no.4 and 5 for vacating interim order would indicate that as many as 18 applications were received for allotment of 3 sites notified, which would negate contention about lack of wide publicity. It was submitted, Rule 3 of Rules stipulated publication of notification in two Kannada Daily newspapers having wide circulation in market area. It was submitted, DIP had enlisted both Samyuktha Karnataka and Hosa Diganta as accredited newspapers by taking note of their wide circulation in local area, including market area. Thus, there was sufficient compliance with requirement of law. 17. It was submitted, after last date for receipt, applications were examined and merit list as per document no.5 prepared. Same was published on notice board of APMC as well as forwarded to Association. On receipt of complaint, enquiry was held. It was submitted, enquiry report found two applicants - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 ineligible and opined that remaining applicants could be considered. Thereafter, revised merit list was prepared and put up for objections to be filed in meeting scheduled on 10.06.2025. As no objections were received, selection of respondents no.4 to 6, who were topping list were identified and forwarded to DMA for approval and same was granted on 17.06.2025. 18. It was submitted, when petitioner claims to be a regular market functionary, there would be no merit in plea of ignorance about vital event, such as allotment of sites in market yard. Insofar as additional ground urged in WP no.27494/2025 that administrator appointed to carry out day- today activities of APMC cannot issue notification for allotment, it was submitted, there was no such bar nor any provision stipulating such bar pointed out. Section 42(2) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 ('Act' for short), provided for administrator to exercise all powers of market committee. 19. It is further specifically contended that petitioners had sought to widen scope of writ petition by urging new and - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 further contentions in their rejoinder statement, which would be impermissible in law. On above grounds submitted, there was no merit in any of contentions urged and writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. 20. Sri Chinmay Kurandwad, learned counsel for respondent no.6 adopted above submissions and prayed for dismissal of writ petitions. 21. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record as well as original allotment file made available by learned counsel for APMC. 22. From above, it is seen main grounds urged in WP no.17773/2025 are firstly, violation of Rule 3 (2) of Rules and secondly, Enquiry Report finding Bhuvaneshwari Fruits and Manjunatha Fruits not satisfying requirement of Rule 8 (4) of Rules; while in WP no.27494/2025, apart from violation of Rule 3 (2) of Rules and ineligibility of Bhuvaneshwari Fruits and Manjunatha Fruits under Rule 8 (4) of Rules, initiation of allotment process by Administrator, who was continued beyond his tenure as being contrary to law are urged. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 23. In rejoinder statement, an additional contention about failure of APMC to confirm to paras 2, 4 and 7 of Circular issued by DMA at Annexure-G is also urged. Same is opposed on ground that new ground cannot be urged in rejoinder statement. 24. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dikshit reported in (2006) 9 SCC 90, held: “43. In the writ petition, the writ petitioners have not disclosed as to how each one of the licensees who had appeared as respondents therein were ineligible or otherwise disqualified and/or did not fulfil the conditions therefor. Had such opportunities been given, the State as also the said respondents could have met the said allegations. Such allegations were made only in the rejoinder. No new plea ordinarily could have been permitted in the rejoinder without the leave of the court. We would not have commented upon this as the High Court does not appear to have placed reliance upon the additional affidavit filed by the State, inter alia, on the ground that the same being a surrejoinder could not have been filed. The High Court's attention was evidently not drawn to the fact that writ petitioners brought on record new facts for the first time in the rejoinder and, thus, the State was entitled to file a surrejoinder controverting the allegations made therein." (emphasis supplied) - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 25. There is no contention about dearth of opportunity to file surrejoinder. Therefore, contentions urged in rejoinder would also require to be met by respondents. 26. In order to appreciate contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 3 (2) of Rules, which reads: "3. Offer of Sites etc., for allotment on lease-cum-sale basis:- (1) … … …. (2) Due publicity shall be given in respect of such allotment specifying the location, number of sites, godowns, shop-cum-godowns, if any, last date for submission of application and such other particulars by affixing a notice to the notice board of the office of the market committee and by publication in not less than two Kannada newspapers widely circulated in the market area. (3) … … …. " 27. Insofar as publication, clause 2 of Circular at Annexure-G provides that publication of notification for allotment should be only after approval by District Information Officer (Press and News). 28. In instant case, in its objections, APMC has stated that publication of notification was got done by DIP. Said assertion has not been controverted by petitioner in rejoinder. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 Even assertion by respondents no.4 and 5 that publication in Newspapers accredited by DIP for publication of notifications etc by Government would be sufficient compliance with requirements of Rule 3(2) of Rules is also not controverted except by stating that daily circulation of Samyukta Karnataka (Bengaluru Edition) was 89693 and that of Hosa Digantha was 101355 as against Prajavani having circulation of 531028 and Kannada Prabha having circulation of 128020. 29. Merely on ground that there are Newspapers with higher circulation would not by itself lead to conclusion that same was with intention to achieve requirement of publication by clandestine means, especially, when choice of News papers for publication was not by APMC, but by DIP, who is not arrayed as party nor any allegations of malafide alleged against him. In fact, records reveal that as per letter dated 01.03.2025, APMC had forwarded notification to DIP, for publication. Therefore, choice of Newspapers for publication was by DIP and not APMC. Hence, allegations of malafide against APMC would not sustain. 30. Apart from above, conclusion is reinforced by fact that Annexure-R4 filed by APMC would indicate copy of - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 notification was also sent to Association. Thus, contention of petitioner that they were prevented from participation in allotment process due to ignorance of said process can only be attributed to their negligence. In its statement of objections, APMC has stated that copy of notification dated 01.03.2025 was affixed on its notice board both at Binnipet and Singena Agrahara. Above facts would indicate, insofar as due publicity, there is substantial compliance. Hence, I do not see any merit in allegation of non-compliance with clause 4 of Circular. 31. Even insofar as non-compliance of Clause 7 of Circular at Annexure-G, even as per petitioners, on publication of merit list, complaint came to be filed alleging ineligibility of M/s.Bhuvaneshwari Fruits and Manjunatha Traders. It is admitted that on receipt of complaint, enquiry was ordered by DMA, leading to enquiry report at Annexure-F implicating above mentioned applicants for irregularities/ineligibility and their exclusion from allotment process. 32. Though, it is contended that on finding irregularities, allotment process in pursuance of Notification at Annexure-B ought to have begun afresh, very same Enquiry - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 Report specifically reported that allotment process could be continued with remaining eligible applicants. Therefore, continuation of allotment process cannot stated to be illegal or arbitrary. 33. On perusal of original allotment records, it is seen, on 05.06.2023, DMA granted approval for publication of notification for allotment of sites no.E32 and F56. Thereafter on 18.11.2023, revised allotment price of sites in various market yards including APMC was issued. Thereafter on 02.12.2023, it was resolved to address letter to DIP to cause publication of notification at cost of APMC and as noted above, notification was published in Newspapers, chosen by DIP and Newspapers so chosen are among list of accredited Newspapers. 34. In writ petition, grievance of petitioners is mainly against M/s.Bhuvaneshwari Fruits and Manjunatha Traders. It is not in dispute that allotment process was proceeded with by weeding out ineligible applicants and considering candidature of other eligible applicants by preparation and publication of revised Merit List, selecting respondents no.4 to 6, who were - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 top three in Merit List, which has received approval by DMA. Thus, procedure in Rule 8 (4) of Rules appears complied. 35. Admittedly, petitioners did not file application in pursuance of Notification at Annexure-B cannot be permitted to challenge allotment process without pointing out any substantial error, irregularity or illegality. 36. Insofar as last contention that allotment process could not be initiated by APMC was under governance of an Administrator appointed to manage day-today activities without taking any policy decision, Division Bench of this Court in case of Vasavi Traders (supra) relied upon by petitioners also held: "223. It is not possible to accept this contention. S. 50 does not bar a modification or cancellation of the earlier resolution. But it stipulates a special majority of votes. Under S. 42(2) of the ‘Act’, which is attracted to the case in the absence of a Market-Committee constituted under the ‘Act’, all or any of the powers of the Market-Committee and its Chairman may be exercised by the Tahsildar who is empowered to act as Administrator until any other person is appointed under S.130 (1) of the Act. A resolution passed by such an Administrator must be held equivalent to an unanimous decision of the Market- Committee and, therefore, the requirement of special majority in S. 50 must be held to have been satisfied." (emphasis supplied) - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42937 WP No. 17773 of 2025 C/W WP No. 27494 of 2025 37. Though, various other decisions are relied upon to highlight said contention, question involved therein namely, appointment of administrators and their tenure and would not be precedents for proposition that administrators cannot initiate process of allotment or for proposition that such process would not fall within meaning of 'managing day-today affairs'. For aforesaid reasons, there is failure to substantiate any material irregularity in process of allotment calling for interference. Hence, writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg*/AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51