- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29908 WP No. 10125 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 10125 OF 2023 (APMC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. BASANTH AND CO., PROPRIETOR - V BAKTHAVATCHALAM S/O. VENKATACHALAPATHI, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.656, 4TH CROSS, NEAR B N E S COLLEGE, MAHALAXMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NO.16, RAJABHAVANA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29908 WP No. 10125 of 2023 3. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE A P M C MARKET YARD, TUMAKURU ROAD, YESHAVANTHAPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022. BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2., SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2022 IN APPEAL NO. KRU.MA.E/NIYAVI/APPEALU/06/2021-22 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BENGALURU A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION DATED 07.03.22 IN ORDER NO. KRU.U . MASA (BEM) LIVI 4022/2021-22 PASSED BY THE SECRETARY, APMC, YESHAVANTHAPUR, BENGALURU, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L AND ALLOW THE APPEAL NO. KRU.MA.E / NIYAVI/ APPEALU/06/2021-22 ON THE FILE OF 2ND RESPONDENT, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29908 WP No. 10125 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the order dated 16.07.2022 in Appeal No.Kru.Ma.E/Niyavi/Appealu/06/2021- 22 passed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing & an Appellate Authority, Bengaluru a copy of which is produced at Annexure-P, confirming the order of cancellation dated 07.03.2022 in Order No.Kru.U.Masa(Bem):Livi:4022/ 2021-22 passed by the Secretary, A P M C, Yeshavanthapur, Bengaluru, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-L and allow the appeal No. Kru.Ma.E/Niyavi/Appealu/06/2021-22 on the file of 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-M, to meet the ends of justice and etc,." 2. Smt.Shilpa Rani, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is market functionary under respondent no.3 at A.P.M.C Market Yard, Bengaluru, issued with Trader licence as well as licence as importer, exporter and commission agent. It was submitted that M/s. Dinesh Traders owner of shop no.5, 6th Main Road, APMC Yard, Yeshavanthapur, Bengaluru, had executed a lease agreement in favour of petitioner on 01.07.2005. Same - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29908 WP No. 10125 of 2023 was for a period of ten years. Learned counsel submitted that at time of seeking renewal of licence, though petitioner had not appended any tampered lease agreement, order dated 07.03.2022 was passed by respondent no.3 cancelling petitioner’s licence as importer, exporter and commission agent on ground that petitioner has appended a tampered lease agreement. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal before respondent no.2, who without proper consideration, under impugned order at Annexure-P dated 16.07.2022, dismissed appeal. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel further submits that at time of filing application for renewal on 31.03.2020, petitioner had appended old lease agreement dated 01.07.2005. It was submitted that proprietor of M/s.Dinesh Traders, namely Sri.Dinesh Babu, died on 07.09.2014. His wife Smt.Sevanthi Dinesh sold premises to Sri.D.V. Shikanth as per Annexure-G. Said D.V. Srikanth, Managing Partner of M/s.Devatha Agencies executed lease agreement in favour - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29908 WP No. 10125 of 2023 of petitioner on 28.02.2022. Thus, petitioner was having current lease agreement in respect of premises. In view of above, cancellation of petitioner’s licence by respondent no.3 and its confirmation by respondent no.2 was contrary to law and sought for quashing. It was submitted that petitioner was carrying on trade at shop premises since 2005 and cancellation would affect petitioner’s livelihood. 4. On other hand, Smt.Vaheeda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri.T. Swaroop, learned counsel for respondent no.3, opposed petition. 5. Referring to statement of objections filed, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that at time of filing application for renewal on 31.03.2020, petitioner had produced lease agreement dated 01.07.2018 alleged to have been executed by landlord Sri.B.S. Dinesh Babu. Based on same, respondent no.3 had renewed licence of petitioner. However, on 03.12.2021, Smt.Sevanthi Dinesh, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29908 WP No. 10125 of 2023 wife of Dinesh Babu addressed a complaint to respondent no.2 alleging that no lease agreement was executed in favour of petitioner and petitioner was unauthorisedly occupying shop premises. 6. On forwardal of said complaint by respondent no.2, respondent no.3 issued notice to petitioner and directed him to attend enquiry on 12.01.2022. On said date, representative of petitioner appeared and sought time and enquiry was adjourned to 29.01.2022. On said date, petitioner produced lease agreement dated 01.07.2005 entered into between petitioner and landlord Sri B.S. Dinesh Babu. Said lease agreement was not in force as on date of renewal. No other agreement current as on said date was produced. It is submitted that notice was issued on 29.01.2022 to petitioner specifically calling upon petitioner to show cause as to why licence should not be cancelled for having sought renewal by misrepresentation. As petitioner failed to show cause, impugned order was passed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29908 WP No. 10125 of 2023 7. It was submitted that there was no dispute about fact that Sri B.S. Dinesh Babu died on 07.09.2014 and therefore, dead man could not have executed lease agreement appended to application for renewal. Therefore, lease agreement dated 01.07.2018 appended to application for renewal was forged. As renewal was obtained by fraudulent manner, impugned order of cancellation of licence was passed as per Annexure-L. It was submitted that said order was confirmed by Appellate Authority as per order at Annexure-P. In view of above, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that there is no merit in writ petition and sought for dismissal. 8. Learned AGA would second said submission. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record. 10. In this petition, petitioner is challenging order of cancellation of licence and its confirmation by Appellate Authority. Admittedly, cancellation is on ground that, at - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29908 WP No. 10125 of 2023 time of filing of application for renewal of licence, petitioner had produced forged lease agreement. Learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that along with application for renewal, old lease agreement dated 01.07.2005 executed by landlord Sri B.S. Dinesh Babu himself was produced and document produced at Annexure-R3 dated 01.07.2018 was not produced by petitioner and therefore, allegation about securing renewal based on forged document and by committing fraud would not stand. But, very assertion by learned counsel that petitioner is having renewal of lease agreement as per Annexure-H dated 28.02.2022, would clearly indicate that as on date of seeking renewal, there was no current lease agreement in favour of petitioner. While passing impugned order, respondent no.3 has specifically held that application for renewal was sought based on Annexure-R3 and same was tampered copy of Annexure-R2, licence was cancelled. On verification of records, said order is confirmed by Appellate Authority. Filing of complaint by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29908 WP No. 10125 of 2023 wife of original landlord Sri B.S. Dinesh Babu and holding of enquiry by respondent no.3 prior to cancellation, would indicate that respondents have followed due process for cancellation. Mere production of renewal of lease agreement by person alleged to be subsequent landlord, would not cure the act of fraud committed by petitioner at time of seeking renewal. 11. Therefore, I do no find any justification warranting interference with impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of petition, pending interlocutory application would not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25