- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29456 WP No. 10466 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 10466 OF 2024 (APMC) BETWEEN: MRS. NEETA G CHUGH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OWNER/ PROPRIETOR N. DAMODAR AND COMPANY, SHOP NO.F-35, SINGHENA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE - 560 053 RESIDING AT 1901 BLOCK 19, EMBASSY HABITAT, PALACE CROSS ROAD, NEXT TO MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE, VASANTHANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SMT/MISS: SHWETHA M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPARTMENT OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, BANGALORE - 560023 2. THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD, BINNYPET, BANGALORE - 560023 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29456 WP No. 10466 of 2024 3. THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET, BANGALORE - 560023 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT. 4. THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AGRAHARA TANK BUND ROAD BINNYPET, BANGALORE - 560023 REP BY ITS SECRETARY 5. SRI. SUBRAMANI S/O SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S S.M.S FRUITS AND CO RESIDING AT NO.910, 7TH CROSS, MEENAKSHI LAYOUT, NEAR G R HOMES RAYASANDRA ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 560 099 DELETED BY COURT ORDER DT:30.07.2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1 SRI. T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4 V/C/O DTD 30.07.2025, R5 IS DELETED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERED DT 21.09.2019 PRODUCED AS ANNX-A. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT ORIGINAL PLOT AS PER ANNX-B. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE PLOT OF SIMILAR DIMENSION AND SPECIFICATIONS WITHIN THE SAME PREMISES OR AT SINGHENA AGRAHARA UPAMARKET PREMISES BANGALORE AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29456 WP No. 10466 of 2024 THIS W.P, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs. "1. set aside the order dated: 21.03.2019 bearing No. ºÀªÀÄvÀ («) PÀÄæGªÀiÁ¸À (¨ÉA)/2757/2018-19 by Agricultural marketing department of fruits and vegetables (respondent 4) produced as Annexure-A 2. Issue a writ of mandamus by directing the respondent bearing No. ºÀªÀÄvÀ («) PÀÄæGªÀiÁ¸À (¨ÉA)/1381-1443/03-04 by Spl. Agricultural produce market committee for fruits and vegetables to allot original plot on 22.10.2003 as per Annexure-B. 3. Pass an order as this Hon'ble court deems just and appropriate in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Smt.Shwetha M Patil, learned counsel appearing for Sri Krishna Murthy N., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was an allottee of shop/godown bearing no.F-35, situated at Singhena Agrahara Sub-market premises, Bangalore. Said allotment was on lease/sale basis for Rs.3,48,190/- payable along with interest over a period of 36 months as per Annexure - B1. Thereafter, when petitioner was issued with a letter as per Annexure - B2, calling upon him to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29456 WP No. 10466 of 2024 pay entire amount, petitioner made entire payments. But as petitioner's husband was ill and required dialyses regularly, she had to shift her residence and incur huge expenses for treatment. However, her husband died on 05.04.2014. In view of above, petitioner could not pursue her claim for execution of sale deed in respect of shop premises. It is further stated that there was no proper access to shop owners of F-Block. Even Bangalore Fruit Commission Agents Association had made a representation to market Committee for provision of road. It was submitted, license issued to petitioner was valid up to 31.03.2024 as per Annexure - D. 3. Under above circumstances, petitioner was unable to carry business. It was therefore submitted, impugned order of cancellation was unilateral and in violation of principle of natural justice and in violation of powers available under Section 72 (D) of Karnataka Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulations and Development) Act, 1966. On above ground, sought for quashing the same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29456 WP No. 10466 of 2024 4. Sri Jayalingayya Mudenoormath, learned AGA for respondent no.1 and Sri T.Swaroop, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4 opposed writ petition. 5. It was submitted, upon allotment of shop on lease/sale basis, petitioner was required to operate as market functionary and carry business, petitioner failed to carry business. Though, petitioner was issued with notices on 21.08.2017, 16.02.018 and 20.04.2018 none of them were replied. Thereafter, respondents had resorted to paper publication before passing impugned order. 6. Therefore, contention of petitioner that cancellation was unilateral and without providing opportunity to petitioner was contrary to facts. It was further submitted other allottees had done business and contention about shop premises not having proper facilities etc., would not stand to reason. Though cancellation was on specific ground that petitioner had failed to carry business, there was no material placed to establish that petitioner had carried on trading. Therefore, cancellation was justified and there was no merit in writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29456 WP No. 10466 of 2024 7. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition records. 8. From above, allotment of Shop No.F-35 at Singhena Agrahara Sub-market premises, Bangalore, to petitioner on 20.10.2003 and lease/sale agreement having been executed in her favour on 01.01.2004, subject to conditions is not in dispute. 9. Condition No.14 in lease/sale agreement (Annexure - B1) reads as follows: "WHEREAS, the LESSEE shall have the limited rights to enjoy the scheduled Property as long as he carries business in the marketing of notified agricultural produce by obtaining annual License and the right conferred on the allottee in respect of the site and the building shall come to an end as soon as he/she ceased to be Licensed market functionary." (emphasis supplied) 10. Said clause would provide for enjoyment of allotted Shop only as long as allottee carries business in marketing of notified agricultural products and obtaining annual license. Said right would cease on petitioner failing in either of conditions. 11. In instant case, though petitioner stated that she had obtained license and same was current up to 31.03.2024, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29456 WP No. 10466 of 2024 same by itself would not satisfy requirements of clause 14. Petitioner ought to have carried on business as trader. There are no materials produced either before Marketing Committee in response to notices or before this Court to show that petitioner had carried business and paid market fee. 12. Under above circumstances, reasons stated in Annexure -A for cancellation would be justified and contentions of petitioner of impugned order being unilateral or in violation of statutory provision and principles of natural justice would not be established. 13. Apart from above, petitioner is apparently guilty of having rendered shop premises unutilized for more than a decade. Said factor would not inspire this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction for interference. 14. There is no merit in any contentions. Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24