- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 22766 OF 2024 (APMC) BETWEEN: FAYAZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED YUNUS 2ND CROSS, TUNGANAGARA GOPALA EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 205 ALSO AT PLOT NO.44 APMC ADI UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARIKSHIT S S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING BENGALURU 560001 2. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURAL MARKETING OFFICE OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING DIRECTOR NO.16, 2ND RAJABHAVAN ROAD P B NO.5309 BENGALURU 560 001 3. ASST. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING UDUPI DISTRICT 576 105 4. AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION MARKETING COMMITTEE ADI UDUPI, UDUPI 576 105 REP BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 5. SRI M GANESH KAMATH AGED MAJOR S/O MARTAPPA KAMATH R/OF KOTESHWARA KUNDAPURA MAIN ROAD UDUPI DISTRICT 576 222 6. SHAKIB AHMED AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O SAMIULLA ATTAR R/AT NO.6-118, G 5 SMT, HANUMANTHANAGARA PUTTURU SANTEKATTE UDUPI 576 222 7. PRAKASH SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O RUDRAPPA SAJJAN 8. SANGANNA R SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O RUDRAPPA SAJJAN RESPONDENT NO.7 AND 8 BOTH ARE R/AT NO.7-105D SAJJAN SHETTY NITHYA BOLARAGUDDA BAILU MANE UDYAVARA UDUPI 574 118 9. MALLIKARJUNA AGED MAJOR S/O DODDAPPA GOWDA R/AT NEAR KARAVALI HOTEL AMBALAPADI UDUPI DISTRICT 576 103 10. K M ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O ACHABBA 11. K M MOHAMMED MANSOOR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O K M ABDUL KHADER - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 RESPONDENT NO.10 AND 11 BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1-4-68A DODDANAGUDDE GUNDLIBAILU UDUPI 576 102 12. H B MOIDIN AGED ABOUT S/O MOIDIN BYARI R/AT 2-14, MOODUBETTU KATAPADI POST KAPU TALUK, UDUPI 574 105 13. PRAHLAD NAYAK AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O K SATHISH NAYAK R/AT NO. 9-17/A, OMPRAKASH SANTEKATTE TANGADAGADI, PUTTUR VILLAGE, UDUPI 576 105 14. RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O MADEVAPPA GOWDA R/AT PANDUBETTU AMBALAPADI UDUPI 576 103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RASHMI.M RAO, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A), R6 TO R14; SRI. JOSEPH ANIL KUMAR A, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITTUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER 06.03.2023 BEARING NO. KRU MA E/AA BHI VI-1/LEE CUM SE/710/2022 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNX-F., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent No.2-Director of Agricultural Marketing, whereby the allotment of godown sites in the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (for short 'APMC') yards was made in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 14. 2. The APMC issued a notification on 31.01.2023 inviting the applications from the eligible traders for allotment of 14 godowns on the lease-cum-sale basis for 10 years. The 19 traders including the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 14 submitted the applications. On 06.03.2023, the Assistant Director of Agricultural Marketing passed an order allotting 11 godowns excluding the petitioner's name. 3. The allottees have filed WP.No.9417/2024 (APMC) seeking a direction to the APMC to sanction the building plans. This Court allowed the writ petition on 03.04.2024, directing the APMC to sanction the building - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 plans. After sanctioning of the building plans and taking possession, the petitioner, whose application was not approved, has approached this Court seeking to quash the allotment made in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 14. At this stage, it is also relevant to state that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.26669/2024, challenging the allotment order dated 06.03.2023 with respect to the allotment of Plot No.44 to Prakash Sajjan, who is respondent No.7 in this writ petition. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said petition as devoid of merits. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri. Joseph Anil Kumar A., learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Smt. Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 14. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotment made by respondent No.2 is arbitrary and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 contrary to the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (for short 'the Rules') and he would urge the allotment to be arbitrary on the following grounds: (i) No public notice or merit list was displayed before finalization. (ii) Two members of the same family were allotted plots. (iii) Only the existing licence holders should have been considered. (iv) Corner plots and multiple godowns were wrongly allotted. (v) Respondent No.6 did not possess a valid licence. (vi) Respondent No.13 applied after the last date. (vii) The petitioner, who claims to be in possession of plot No.44, was overlooked without justification. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 14 in support of their statement of objections, contends that the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed as all allotments were lawful and procedurally valid. It is contended that all the allottees were long standing licensed traders and the eligible traders in APMC yards, while the petitioner is a resident of Shivamogga, lacked local trading. It is submitted that Evaluation Committee awarded marks as per norms and the lease-cum-sale agreements have already been executed, possession handed over, and the construction commenced. The petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the allotment of respondent No.7 in W.P.No.26669/2024, cannot re- agitate the very same grounds. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4-APMC submits that the allotment was carried out strictly in accordance with APMC Rules under the supervision of the administrator appointed under Section 42 of the APMC Act and that the selection was made based on valid - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 parameters including licence validity, seniority, turnover, payment of market fee and local participation. The Enquiry Committee vide report dated 17.11.2023 confirms due compliance with rules. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. 9. Pursuant to the notification dated 31.01.2023, 19 applications were received including the present petitioner. The Assistant Director of Agricultural Marketing, acting on behalf of the administrator appointed under Section 42 of the APMC Act and Rules scrutinised all applications based on the prescribed criteria such as: (i) Validity of trading licence. (ii) Seniority of licence. (iii) Quantum of trading turnover. (iv) Payment of market fee. (v) Local residents and continues cooperation with market yards. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 10. Each applicant were assessed and marks were awarded out of a total 15 points as is reflected in the evaluation sheet prepared by the APMC. On that basis, the selection list was finalized and approved. By order dated 06.03.2023, 11 godowns were allotted to the eligible traders i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 14, however, respondent No.5 is no more. On lease-cum-sale basis, uniform rate at Rs.376/- per square feet has been resolved by the Committee. Subsequent to allotment, the lease-cum-sale agreements were executed, possession was delivered and building plans were sanctioned pursuant of the Court’s direction in W.P.No.9417/2024. Enquiry was ordered by the Deputy Commissioner on the complaints of irregularities, which resulted in a report dated 17.11.2023, confirming that the allotment process had been in conformity with the APMC Act and Rules. The petitioner's principal grievance was considered in W.P.No.26669/2024 and this Court at paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 has held as under: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 10. From above, petitioner's main grievance against allotment of plot no.44 by respondent no.4 in favour of respondent no.5 is firstly on ground that petitioner was earlier licencee than respondent no.5 and that he had also paid more market fee than respondent no.5 during 3 years prior to date notification. 11. Insofar as seniority amongst licencees as a criteria for selection, though there is reference in Rule-8(1)(ii), same is as rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.4, is in conjunction with earlier failed attempts in securing allotment. 12. Statement by respondent no.4 that notification at Annexure-D was issued for first time in APMC is not disputed. Moreover in tabulation of merit of applicants as per Annexure-R7, respondent no.4 has stated that average market fee paid by petitioner is Rs.22,146/- earning 38 merit marks including umber of years as licencee, while average market fee paid by respondent no.5 is Rs.33,896/- earning 45 merit marks. Therefore, respondent no.5 is clearly more meritorious than petitioner. Allegation that respondent no.5 gad not paid any market fee is not substantiated." 11. Consequently, the said writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43116 WP No. 22766 of 2024 12. In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to re-agitate the very same allegations though the earlier writ petition has attained finality. The petitioner cannot collaterally re-open the issues, which have already been adjudicated. No grounds are made out to interfere with the allotment in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 14. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3