- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18313 WP No. 6834 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.6834 OF 2026 (APMC) BETWEEN: SRI B.M. SHIVARAJ AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O B.S. MALLESHAPPA, R/AT NO.65, 2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE, NEAR LAXMI TALKIES, VINOBANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577204. PROPRIETOR AT SRI MALLESHWARA BALEKAI MAND SHIVAMOGGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GOUTHAM M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01. 2. THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU – 01. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR APMC YARD SAGARA ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18313 WP No. 6834 of 2026 4. THE APMC SHIVAMOGGA BY ITS CHAIRMAN APMC MARKET YARD SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI T. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN NO. KruMaE/AaBiVi-1/Le&Li/16/2024 (ANNEXURE-A), DATED 14.11.2024, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOTMENT OF SHOP NO. 16 TO THE PETITIONER AND ALSO ISSUE A WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT SHOP NO.5 IN APMC YARD, SHIVAMOGGA, TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Director, Agricultural Marketing (respondent No. 2), whereby the earlier allotment of shop No. 5 in favour of the petitioner has been modified and shop No. 16 has been allotted in its place and seeks for consequential relief of restoration of shop No. 5. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18313 WP No. 6834 of 2026 BRIEF FACTS 2. The petitioner is a licensed fruit trader operating since 2016-17 in Shivamogga. A notification dated 30.01.2024 was issued for allotment of APMC commercial shop on leave and license basis. The petitioner applied seeking allotment of shop Nos. 6, 7 and 8. Shop No. 5 was initially reserved for Scheduled Tribe category under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (‘Rules, 2004’). As no Scheduled Tribe applicants applied, the shop became available for general category. A seniority list and a resolution recommended allotment to the petitioner. Accordingly, shop No. 5 was allotted to the petitioner on 21.06.2024 by respondent No. 3. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 by order dated 14.11.2024 substituted shop No. 5 with shop No. 16. The petitioner, on the ground that shop No. 16 is unsuitable, gave representation requesting restoration of shop No. 5, having not granted any relief the present writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18313 WP No. 6834 of 2026 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned substitution is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner being a licensed trader was validly allotted shop No. 5 pursuant to the resolution and approval of the competent authority. It is submitted that in terms of Rule 17 (2) (ii) of the Rules, 2004, when no application were received from the reserved category, the shops can be allotted to general category applicant. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation and accrued right based on the seniority list, resolution and formal allotment order and that the subsequent substitution of shop No. 5 with shop No. 16 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14. It is submitted that the petitioner is being engaged in the fruit business, requires a shop facing the main road and allotment of shop No. 16 is unsuitable and causes prejudice. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits that the initial allotment of shop No. 5 was subject to reservation policy and statutory framework and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18313 WP No. 6834 of 2026 could not confer any vested right. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Rule 17 (2) (ii) of the Rules, 2004, is misconceived in view of its substitution. It is submitted that the market committee and the Director have acted within their jurisdiction in modifying the allotment. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot insist on a particular shop as a matter of right and the allotment is purely administrative and conditional. 5. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 6. The principal contention of the petitioner is founded on Rule 17 (2) (ii) of the Rules, 2004, contending that once no application are received from the reserved category, the shop ought to have been allotted to him under the general category. The said contention proceeds on the basis of the earlier scheme of Rule 17 (2) (ii) of the Rules, 2004. However, it is not in dispute that the said provisions stood substituted with effect from 15.03.2022 which reads as under : - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18313 WP No. 6834 of 2026 “17. Reservation of site etc., (1) Horizontal reservation – Out of sites, shops, shop-cum-godown or godowns to be allotted by the market committee, such number as may be specified by the State Government from time to time shall be reserved in each category for allotment in favour of persons belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and ten percent reservation from Farmers Produced Organisations (FPO): Provided that rebate to Farmers Producer Organisations not less than fifty percent of the site value fixed under rule 5 or leave and licence fee fixed under sub-rule (5) of rule 13 as the case may be. (2) Vertical reservation – Out of sites, Shops, shop-cum-godown or godown to be allotted by the market committee, about two percent may be reserved in each category for allotment in favour of physically challenged persons and ex-service man and ten per cent in favour of the women who have obtained licence from market committee.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18313 WP No. 6834 of 2026 7. Upon such substitution, the earlier mechanism which enabled allotment of reserved category shops to general category applicants, upon non-receipt of the applications is no longer available in the manner sought to be canvassed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim an enforceable or a vested right to seek allotment of a shop earmarked for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category merely on the ground that no applications were received from the reserved category. The contention that the petitioner is entitled to such allotment therefore cannot be sustained. 8. The reliance placed on the resolution of the Market Committee and the earlier allotment order does not advance the case of the petitioner. It is well settled that the allotment of public property is always subject to the governing statutory rules and any resolution or administrative decision contrary to the statutory framework cannot confer a legally enforceable right. The impugned action of the Director in substituting the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18313 WP No. 6834 of 2026 allotment of shop No. 5 with shop No. 16, is therefore, traceable to the statutory scheme as amended and cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal so as to warrant interference. The contentions regarding the suitability of the shop for the petitioner's business though urged cannot override the statutory mandate governing allotment and no ground is made out to interfere on that basis. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and hence the following : ORDER Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78