- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 953 OF 2024 (APMC) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 1899 OF 2024 (APMC) IN W.A. No. 953/2024: BETWEEN: 1. M/S. CHAMUNDESHWARI INDUSTRIES TRADERS No.142/1, APMC YARD BANDIPALYA MYSORE - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY SMT. SWETHA RAJU …APPELLANT (BY SRI ABHIJIT HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANNAPURNA ENTERPRISES No.180/2, B BLOCK, APMC YARD BANDIPALYA, MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. ROOPA C.A. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICLUTURAL MARKETING No.16, II RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 3. THE SECRETARY THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE MARKET YARD BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.R. SATENAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.15121/2021 (APMC) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION No.15121/2021 (APMC) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFs INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL. IN W.A. NO.1899/2024: BETWEEN: 1. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE MARKET YARD BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY R. M. KUMARSWAMY. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 AND: 1. ANNAPURNA ENTERPRISES NO.180/2, B BLOCK APMC YARD, BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. ROOPA C. A. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. M/S. CHAMUNDESHWARI INDUSTRIES TRADERS NO.142/1, APMC YARD BANDIPALYA MYSURU - 570 025 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. SWETHA RAJU. ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/04/2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.15121/2021 (APMC) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.15121/2021 (APMC) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the application ― I.A.1/2024, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellants have filed their respective appeals impugning an order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15121/2021. The said writ petition was filed by Smt. Roopa C.A. in the name of her sole proprietorship concern M/s. Annapoorna Enterprises (respondent No.1 in W.A.No.953/2024). The writ petitioner impugns an order dated 22.07.2021 passed by respondent No.2 (Director of Agriculture and Marketing) approving the resolution of the APMC, Mysore [APMC] allotting various sites to eligible market functionaries. The writ petitioner was one of the eligible market functionaries and was aggrieved by the allotment of Site A―16 to the appellant, M/s. Chamundeshwari Industries Traders, which was placed lower than the order of seniority. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 3. Briefly stated the controversy in the present appeal arises in the following context. 4. APMC had issued a notification dated 02.02.2021 inviting applications from eligible market functionaries for allotment of 155 (one hundred and fifty five) vacant sites of various measurements available at Bandipalya, main market premises of Mysore Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, on lease-cum-sale basis on the terms and conditions prescribed by the APMC. The writ petitioner as well as the appellant filed their respective applications for allotment of sites. The writ petitioner indicated a preference of number of thirteen number of sites including Site No. A―16, which was listed at Sl.No.4. The appellant sought allotment of Site No.93―D. Both the applicants also deposited the requisite earnest money. 5. The applications were evaluated and a seniority list was published for the purpose of allotment for various sites. The writ petitioner was placed at Sl.No.12 and the appellant was placed at Sl.No.32. The APMC passed a resolution for allotment of Site No.C―31 to the petitioner and Site No. A-16 to the appellant. The said resolution approving allotment of sites was approved and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 APMC executed a lease-cum-sale agreement allotting Site No. A―16 to the appellant. 6. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by this allotment of Site No. A―16 to the appellant, filed a writ petition claiming that the said allotment was in contravention to Rule 8 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards), Rules, 2004 [the Rules]. The learned Single Judge found that the allotment of Site No. A―16 to the appellant was unsustainable as the writ petitioner was higher in the order of seniority and had specifically applied for Site No.A―16. The appellant on the other hand was not only lower in the order of seniority, but had not applied for Site No.A―16, which was allotted to it; the appellant had indicated his preference for allotment to Site No.93―D. 7. The writ petitioner submitted that it could not file its objections to the list as at the material time disruptions were caused due to outbreak of COVID-19 and several market functionaries were unable to visit the market committee. However, the writ petitioner had filed its objections to the list of allotments on 19.07.2021. It is contended on behalf of APMC that the said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 objections were highly delayed and therefore the allotment could not be questioned. 8. The learned Single Judge found that respondent No.2 had approved the proposal within a period of two days after it was submitted and the writ petitioner had no effective opportunity to submit its objection to the proposal. 9. The appellants assail the impugned order on two fronts. First, it is contended that the writ petitioner had applied for thirteen sites, but had paid earnest money only in respect of one site. Thus, the writ petitioner’s application could not be entertained for the other sites as mentioned in the application. The learned counsel also drew the attention to Rule 3 of the Rules and contended that whenever application in respect to the allotment of sites is invited, any licensed market functionary can apply to the Market Committee in Form III, along with an initial deposit, which would not be less than 25% of the value of the site. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that in view of Rule 3 of the Rules, the writ petitioner could not have applied for multiple sites. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 10. Second, it was contended that Rule 8 of the Rules, would be applicable only in cases where there were rival contenders for the same site. It is submitted that since appellant had not applied for Site A―16, the inter se seniority between the appellant and writ petitioner was not relevant. 11. At the outset it is relevant to refer to Rule 3 (3) of the said Rules, which is relied upon by the appellants. The same is set out below: "3. Offer of site, etc., for allotment on lease- cum-sale basis. ― *** *** *** *** "3.(3) Whenever the Market Committee calls for applications in respect of allotment of sites, godowns, shops or shop-cum-godowns on lease-cum-sale basis, any licensed market functionary who is registered under Rule 6 may apply to the market committee in Form III along with an initial deposit which shall not be less than twenty-five per cent of the value of the site, godown, shop or shop-cum-godown as the case may be." 12. There is no cavil that an applicant is required to make an initial deposit along with the application. The writ petitioner had in conformity with the Rule 3 of the Rules made a deposit, which admittedly exceeded the initial deposit amount required to be made - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 for Site A―16. Thus, the petitioner had, in fact, deposited the requisite amount. The contention that the writ petitioner was not entitled to allotment of a site on account of the writ petitioner applying indicating as many as thirteen sites is also unpersuasive for several reasons. First of all, the application of the writ petitioner was not rejected. Undisputedly, APMC had considered the said application as an application for a site and had not treated the same for multiple sites. The writ petitioner had listed a number of sites as its preference. However, the application was only for a single site. APMC also understood the same as an application for a single site and, thus, had not raised any objection in this regard. The APMC had not made any demand for further deposits. This is in conformity with the understanding that the writ petitioner applied for a singular site, but had indicated its preference in respect of thirteen sites as listed in the application. The first three sites, listed at Sl.No.1 to 3 in the writ petitioner’s application were allotted to applicants who were placed higher in the order of seniority. Thus, the writ petitioner would be entitled to allotment of Site A―16, which was mentioned in Sl.No.4. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 13. It is also relevant to refer to Rule 8 of the Rules which is set out below. 8. Principles for selection of applicant for allotment.- (1) The Market Committee shall in case of allotment of a site, shop, godown, or shop-cum-godown under Rule 3 or 13 consider the case of each applicant on merits and shall consider the following principles in making selection for allotment under Rule 3 or 13, namely.- (i) The status of the applicant, i.e., whether an individual, [or a person or a company or a] joint family or a Partnership firm; (ii) The number of years the licensed market functionary has been waiting for the allotment and his inability to get inspite of being eligible in his previous attempts; (iii) The total market fee paid during the previous three years and the average market fee paid in a year. (2) At the time of making allotment, if sufficient numbers of applications are not received from the licensed market functionaries, the Market Committee may relax the above conditions with the previous approval of the Director of Agricultural Marketing. (3) The Secretary of the Market Committee shall make a list of applicants and shall within seven days from the last date specified for receipt of applications, cause to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 publish such list on the notice board of the Market Committee. (4) A seniority list of the applicants shall be prepared in Form IX consisting of the names of applicants, attempts they made for allotment, three years average market fee paid by them and the following criteria shall be considered for preparing the list and the highest points secured by the applicants shall be the orders of seniority. (i) Each continuous completed year of licence shall be considered as two points; (ii) Each attempt made by the applicant for allotment shall be considered as two points; (iii) Each unit of one thousand rupees of average market fee paid by the applicant shall be considered as one point and the fraction of less than one thousand rupees shall be ignored for computation of points. 14. Admittedly, the APMC prepared a seniority list on the basis of criteria mentioned in Rule 8(4) of the Rules. The writ petitioner had secured 804 points and was thus placed at serial number 12 in the seniority list. The appellant secured 347 points and was thus placed lower in the order of seniority at Serial No. 32. Thus, clearly the writ petitioner was entitled to allotment of sites based on its preference and its position in the order of seniority. There is no - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35861-DB WA No. 953 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1899 of 2024 dispute that following the said criteria the writ petitioner was entitled to allotment of Site A―16 as the sites indicated at Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 3 had been allotted to applicants, who were higher in order of seniority. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge. 15. The appeals are unmerited and accordingly dismissed. 16. Pending application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE sd List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28