- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34110 WP No. 26400 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 26400 OF 2025 (APMC) BETWEEN: M/S MAHAVEER TRADING COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER - SRI. BHARAT MANUBHAL CODE NO.8073, NO.237-64, 6TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, MARKET YARD, YESHWATHPURA, BENGALURU - 560 022, UN-REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION. M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, MAHATMA GANDHI COMPLEX, A.P.M.C. MARKET YARD, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34110 WP No. 26400 of 2025 YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO(I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.KRUMAEE/ KRUHUMASA/BEM/NYAVI/1905/2025-26 DATED 19.08.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-T IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO CLAIMING OF INTEREST AT 12 P.A. FROM 01.04.2023 TO 14.08.2025 ON THE MARKET FEE OF RS.11,38,727.00/-. (II) ISSUE A WRIT MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE -S, IN ACCORDANCE WITH BY LAW NO.11(4) (A) OF THE RESPONDENT COMMITTEE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34110 WP No. 26400 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned notice bearing no.KruMaEe.KruHuMaSa. Bem. NYaVi.1905/2025-26 dated 19.08.2025 passed by respondent no.3 at Annexure -T in so far as it relates to claiming of interest @ 12 p.a. from 01.04.2023 to 14.08.2025 on the market fee of Rs.11,38,727/- ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2025 Vide Annexure-S in accordance with Bye Law No.11(A) of the Respondent Committee etc. 2. Smt.Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was doing business in spices outside APMC Market yard from 2018-21, which would not attract market fee under Section 65 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation & Development) Act, 1966. However, a notice was issued to petitioner on 26.12.2023 to produce GST returns from financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23. On petitioners submitting same, respondents alleged that petitioner had transacted in notified agricultural produce attracting levy of Market fee and penalty of Rs.1,18,05,776/-. Petitioner was issued with demand notice dated 10.07.2024 at Annexure-D and final notice dated 19.08.2024 at Annexure-E. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34110 WP No. 26400 of 2025 Same was challenged by petitioner in appeal before respondent no.3, but which was rejected by resolution dated 27.06.2025, leading to issuance of demand notice at Annexure-K dated 02.07.2025. Same was challenged by petitioner before this Court in W.P.no.22578/2025, wherein on 29.07.2025 an interim order was granted as per Annexure-S, directing petitioner to pay market fee of Rs.18,87,87,815/- with interest at 12% p.a. taking note of admitted transactions attracting market fee. In terms thereof, petitioner paid Rs.12,75,375/- with interest at 12% p.a. Despite same, respondent no.3 had issued impugned demand notice at Annexure-J. 3. It was submitted, learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.no.16327/2002 disposed of on 16.07.2002 and Division Bench of this Court in WA no.30029/2013 disposed of on 13.04.2016 had held respondent could only levy one time penalty as per Section 65(A) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations and Development) Act, 1966 and there was no provision for levy of interest. Therefore, demand of interest by respondent was contrary to law and sought for quashing same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34110 WP No. 26400 of 2025 4. Relying on decision of this Court in KM Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1985 Kar. 2401, it was submitted based only on GST returns, transactions cannot be assumed and demand for market fee cannot be made. It was further submitted, alleging non- compliance with interim order passed by this Court and demand at Annexure-T, respondents were not permitting petitioner's goods to enter shop premises, therefore sought for indulgence. 5. On other hand, Sri T Swaroop, learned counsel for respondent no.3, at outset submitted, present writ petition was untenable and abuse of process of Court as impugned demand notice at Annexure-T was consequent to interim order passed by this Court in W.P.no.22578/2025 on 29.07.2025. If petitioner was aggrieved by any conditions imposed in interim order, petitioner ought to have questioned same before appropriate forum and could not file separate writ petition. It was submitted, payment made by petitioner at Annexure-S was not in compliance with interim order and therefore demand notice was issued for deficit. Learned counsel further submitted, on receipt of payment at Annexure-S, respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34110 WP No. 26400 of 2025 had taken steps for restoration of licence and issuance of Gate passes to petitioner. On above grounds sought for dismissal of petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused writ petition. 7. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is against notice at Annexure-T. Bare perusal thereof would reveal that same is issued in pursuance of interim order dated 29.07.2025 granted by this Court in WP no.22578/2025 filed by petitioner assailing demand notice at Annexure-K dated 02.07.2024 and official memorandum dated 23.07.2025 at Annexure-R and not independent of same. 8. thus grounds urged by petitioner herein are in nature of challenge to conditions in interim order, for which separate writ petition would not be permissible. Moreover, there is partial compliance. Merely on ground of partial compliance with interim order, petitioner cannot seek for any further interim protection that too in a separate writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34110 WP No. 26400 of 2025 In view of above, petition is misconceived and apparent abuse of process of Court and is dismissed imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to 'Advocates' Welfare Fund' within four weeks. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg*: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19