- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29519 WP No. 31623 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 31623 OF 2019 (APMC) BETWEEN: V. SUBBANNA S/O S.P.VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SRI ASHTAVINAYAKA ARECANUT TRADERS P-16/2, APMC YARD, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, II RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE APMC YARD, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. D. ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DTD11.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ALSO ENDORSEMENT DTD2.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-K. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD14.2.2019 VIDE 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 Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29519 WP No. 31623 of 2019 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned letter dated 11.06.2019 in No.KruMaE/AaBhiV-1/LeeKamSe/39/2012 issued by 1st respondent vide Annexure-J and also endorsement dated 02.07.2019 in No.KruMaaE/KruUMaaSa/Shi/543/2019-20 issued by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-K; (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.02.2019 vide Annexure-F; (c) Issue such other direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had obtained trader license from respondent no.2 - Market Committee on 13.11.2010 and was carrying trade of Arecanut in respondent no.2. It was submitted, respondent no.2 had issued Notification at Annexure-B dated 27.02.2012 notifying auction of certain plots for construction of shop-cum-godown. It was submitted, petitioner paid Earnest Money Deposit ('EMD' for short) and participated in auction, wherein his bid of Rs.19,62,000/- returned highest bid. In pursuance of same, petitioner deposited 25% of bid amount. However as petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community, he approached respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29519 WP No. 31623 of 2019 no.2 with a plea to avail benefit of Rule 17 of APMC Rules. When, respondent no.2 rejected petitioner’s request, he approached this court in W.P.no.39031/2012. Said writ petition was dismissed on 24.01.2017. Aggrieved, petitioner had filed W.A.no.2177/2017, but got it dismissed as not pressed on 16.01.2018. 3. Thereafter on 20.02.2019 as per Annexure-G, respondent no.2 passed resolution accepting entire bid amount by petitioner in respect of Site no.22 and confirmed allotment. In pursuance of same, petitioner deposited entire bid amount on 30.03.2019 as per Annexure-M. Under impugned order respondent no.1 refused to confirm resolution as per Annexure-J. Rejection was informed by respondent no.2 by issuing impugned endorsement. Assailing same, it was firstly submitted, petitioner had paid payment of entire bid amount i.e., Rs.19,62,000/- as early as on 30.03.2019 and same has been lying with respondent no.2. It was secondly submitted that Site no.22 had not been allotted to anyone else and there was no reason mentioned in Annexure-J for rejection of auction allotment in favour of petitioner. On said grounds sought for allowing writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29519 WP No. 31623 of 2019 4. Sri Jayalingayya Mudenoormath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1 sought to support impugned order at Annexure-J. 5. Heard, learned counsel for parties and perused writ petition record. 6. Issuance of Notification for auction allotment of Site no.22, conduct of auction, petitioner’s participation therein and petitioner returning highest bidder in respect of Site no.22 at Rs.19,62,000/- are not in dispute. Likewise, that petitioner had made payment of 25% of bid amount within time stipulated after auction. 7. But, as required under Rule 10(i) of APMC Rules, petitioner was required to pay balance bid amount within 90 days from date of receipt of order of allotment. Said rule contemplates extension of period for payment by 60 days on payment of interest at 12%. Instead of paying balance amount within time, petitioner pursued his claim for benefit under Rule 17 before respondent no.2 and on rejection before this Court by filing writ petition and writ appeal. Allotted site was left idle in meanwhile. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29519 WP No. 31623 of 2019 8. After withdrawal of W.A.no.2177/2017 on 16.01.2018 and respondent no.2 passing resolution at Annexure-G, petitioner claims to have paid entire bid amount. But, as respondent no.2 is not final authority insofar as allotment and same required approval, proposal was forwarded to respondent no.1. Under impugned order at Annexure-J, respondent no.1 has refused to approve auction allotment in favour of petitioner. Though, detailed reasons are not stated in impugned order, it would be apparent that value of Site no.22 would have appreciated due to lapse of time. Auction was conducted in year 2012 and petitioner paid entire bid amount only on 30.03.2019 i.e. after 7 years. Therefore, rejection by respondent no.1 cannot be stated to be without any justification. Impugned endorsement at Annexure-K is in pursuance of order passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure J. 9. Indeed after passage of Annexure-J and Annexure- K, respondents would have been well advised to have informed petitioner to obtain refund of bid amount or to have refunded same, failure of respondent authorities on this count would not have petitioner succeed in writ petition. Purpose of auction allotment is to obtain best value for properties put to auction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29519 WP No. 31623 of 2019 Due to lapse of time, value of property (Site no.22) would have appreciated. Therefore, allotment of same has to be redone in conformity with Rule 9 of APMC Rules. And equities could be balanced by directing respondents to refund bid amount of petitioner within eight weeks from date of order with interest at 8% per annum from date of respective deposit, if petitioner does not intend to participate in subsequent auction by claiming adjustment of deposit towards EMD. 10. In case petitioner expresses his intention to participate in subsequent auction and request respondents to treat his deposit towards EMD as initial deposit and balance deposit, he would not be entitled for interest on EMD amount from date of expression of his interest. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. Respondents are directed to put Site no.22 for re-auction within three months from today. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36