- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31407 WP No. 24258 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 24258 OF 2024 (APMC) BETWEEN: M/S. SREE GANESH TRADERS REP BY ITS PARTNER SRI K.S. KIRAN KUMAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, NO.320/3, A BLOCK, APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU 70 025. R/A #296, 13TH CROSS, B-BLOCK, J.P.NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 008. …PETITIONER (BY Smt.SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, 2ND RAJABHAVANA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. THE AGIRCULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MYSURU - NANJANGUDU ROAD, BANDIPALYA, MYSURU 570 025. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2 (PH); SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PH)] THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DTD 5.7.2024 IN APPEAL NO. KRU.MA.E/ABHIVI/APPEAL/26/2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 - DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J CONFIRMING THE ENDORSEMENT IN NO. KRU.U.MA.SA/MY/4283/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE R-3 COMMITTEE, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL OF THE PETITIONER AS PER Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31407 WP No. 24258 of 2024 REPRESENTATION DTD 12.10.2023 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F. 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 ORAL ORDER Writ petition is filed challenging orders at Annexures - J and H. 2. Smt.Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was a partnership firm consisting of two partners as per Partnership Deed dated 27.11.2012. It was allotted site no.93/D in Bandipalya Market Yard, APMC, Mysuru, and lease cum sale agreement dated 10.08.2021 was executed as per Annexure-B. Petitioner firm had obtained Trader Licence as well as Commission Agent Licence from respondents. As per licence cum sale agreement, petitioner was required to put up construction of shop-cum-godown over site. 3. Since one of partners of petitioner firm namely Kiran Kumar K.S. expressed his intention to retire from firm, representation was submitted to respondent no.3 - Market Committee on 12.10.2023 as per Annexure-F. However, representation was rejected and endorsement at Annexure-G - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31407 WP No. 24258 of 2024 was issued by referring Rule 10(1)(ix) and 12(1) of Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Allotment of Property in Market Yard) Rules, 2004 ('Rules' for short), even though they were not applicable to site and would apply only in respect of shops, shop-cum-godown. Aggrieved by same, petitioner had preferred appeal before respondent no.2. However, respondent no.2 with proper consideration rejected appeal under impugned order dated 05.07.2024 at Annexure-J. 4. It was submitted, under similar circumstances, respondent no.2 had accepted request for retirement of one partner and induction of another in case of M/s Pawan Enterprises as per Annexure-L and petitioner was being discriminated. On said ground sought for quashing of impugned order. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate chose to adopt submission of respondent no.3. 6. Sri T Swaroop, learned counsel, for respondent no.3 opposed writ petition and submitted, allotment of site to petitioner-Firm was under Rules. It was not in dispute that allotment was with a condition for putting up construction of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31407 WP No. 24258 of 2024 shop-cum-godown to be put up within one year from date of allotment with provision for extension by another year. It was submitted, Rule 10(1)(vi) of Rules prohibited alienation of site, shop-cum-godown or shop within 10 years from date of allotment. It was submitted, Rule 10(1)(ix) though recognized change in constitution of firm, it mandated enquiry by Market Committee to decide whether reconstitution resulted in transfer as per Rule 12. It was submitted, Rule 12 provides restriction on transfer including by a partner in partnership firm retiring with induction of new partner within 10 years of allotment. Under above circumstances, impugned orders were justified and sought for dismissal. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 8. From above, main ground of challenge against endorsement at Annexure-H and order at Annexure-J is that prohibition under Rule 10(1)(ix) and Rule 12 would not apply in case of site and on ground of discrimination by respondent no.2 having approved transfer under similar circumstances as per Annexure-L in case of another partnership firm. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31407 WP No. 24258 of 2024 9. Perusal of Annexure-L would prima facie indicate that respondent no.2 had permitted transfer on account of retirement of partner with induction of new partner. Apparently, Annexure -L was not within knowledge of petitioner and urged in appeal. Therefore, petitioner could not have asserted said ground before respondent no.2. 10. Under above circumstances, it would be appropriate to set-aside order at Annexure-J and remitted matter back to respondent no.2 to consider petitioner's contention about discrimination based on Annexure-L as well as whether Rules would prohibit/restrict transfer under Rule 10(1)(ix) and 12 apply to sites before construction to be decided by respondent no.2. 11. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order at Annexure-J is quashed. Matter stands remitted back to respondent no.2 for decision afresh. At time of reconsideration, respondent no.2 to give specific finding about petitioner's contention, whether restriction/prohibition against transfer under Rule 10(1)(ix) and 12 of Rules would apply in case of site and about discrimination along with other grounds. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31407 WP No. 24258 of 2024 Since parties are represented, they are directed to appear before respondent no.2 without awaiting fresh notice on 15.09.2025 at 11 AM. Respondent no.2 to decide appeal within outer limit of two months, thereafter and inform result to petitioner. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33