- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32496 WP No. 13175 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 13175 OF 2023 (APMC) BETWEEN: 1. K GOVINDHARAJU, S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SRI RAVALADEVARAKENDADAMMA, BHALE KAI DALALIMANDI SHOP, NO.B-11, FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKET, APMC YARD, RAITHA BHAVANA, DAVANAGERE - 577 003. 2. N RAJANNA, S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SRI MANJUNATHASWAMY, PLANTATION MANDI, SHOP NO.B-8, FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKET, APMC YARD, RAITHA BHAVANA, DAVANAGERE - 577 003. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJENDRA M S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32496 WP No. 13175 of 2023 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ALSO THE ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE DAVANAGERE APMC YARD, DAVANAGERE. 3. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE DAVANAGERE APMC YARD, DAVANAGERE, BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 16.3.2022 BEARING NO.KRUMAE/AABV-1/LEANDLI/586/2021-22 VIDE ANNX-A, ISSUED BY THE R-1 AS ARBITRARY. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32496 WP No. 13175 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging order dated 16.03.2022 passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-A. 2. Sri Rajendra MS, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, petitioners were carrying on business in shops at APMC Market Yard Davanagere - respondent no.3 on leave and licence basis at Annexures B and B1 respectively with licence fee fixed at Rs.4,657/- per month. It was submitted, even though same was being paid by petitioners regularly, they were issued with notices for payment of licence fee at Rs.11,750/- per month for 11 months period upto minimum of 55 months as per endorsement/intimation at Annexures - D and D1 respectively. Though, petitioners filed objections to same at Annexures - E to E.3, same was not considered and impugned order at Annexure-A was passed. 3. It was submitted, escalation from Rs.4,657/- to Rs.11,750/- i.e. more than two times was contrary to rule 16(4) of Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules 2004, ('Rules' for short), which permit escalation at maximum of 5% for every 33 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32496 WP No. 13175 of 2023 months. On said ground sought for quashing of impugned order. 4. On other hand, Sri Bhojegowda T Koller, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent no.3 opposed writ petition. It was submitted, escalation of licence fee was not midterm as sought to be made out by petitioners. It was submitted, grant of terms of leave and licence to petitioners was from 01.04.2017. Term was initially for 11 months extendable by four terms i.e., for 55 months. Rule 16(4) of Rules provided for escalation licence fee after completion of 33 months during this period of 55 months. It was submitted petitioners' term of 55 months had completed on 31.12.2021. For next period as provided under Rule 15 of Rules and for some respondent no.1 had fixed licence fee. Said fixation of licence fee was under Rule 15 of Rules, restriction under Rule 16(4) of Rules, would not apply. It was submitted, fixation was taking note of relevant factors and therefore not open for challenge. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32496 WP No. 13175 of 2023 6. From above, petitioners' grievance against fixation of licence fee from 01.01.2022 at Rs.11,750/- is on ground that same was contrary to Rule 16(4) of Rules. Perusal of Annexure- C, receipt for payment of licence fee would indicate that petitioners had paid licence fee from 01.06.2017 to 31.03.2021. Same would fall in line with assertion of respondent that petitioners had completed their term of leave and licence basis of 55 months. During said period there appears to be no escalation. On completion of term respondent no.1 has fixed Rs.11,750/- as licence fee for next period of 55 months. Said fixation, as rightly submitted would be under Rule 15 by Director of Agricultural Marketing. Except alleging fixation as contrary to rule 16(4) of Rules, no other grounds are urged. Since fixation is as per Rule 15 of Rules, petitioners challenge to Annexure-A would not be tenable. Consequently, Writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33