Banappa Fakeerappa vs Agrl Prod. Market Committee

This is a petition by Bannappa Fakeerappa Shiggaon and another being aggrieved by the reply issued by the first-respondent Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Hubli, declining to take action against the 2nd respondent firm on the complaint made by the first of the petitioners.

The facts involved in this petition. may be briefly stated as follows:

The petitioner and second respondent are close relatives. The second respondent was put in charge of the trade and business of the first and second petitioners when the first-petitioner was not keeping good health. The business, it is alleged by the petitioners was being carried on by them in premises bearing No. CTS 111 to 114 situated in the Cotton Market Yard, Hubli. They also claim that it belongs to them. Their grievance is that the second respondent some how by misrepresentation managed to get a trader''s licence from the first-respondent, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee as a Commission Agent giving the same address in respect of which they also have been licenced as Commission Agents by the Marketing Committee. It is also admitted by the petitioners that some civil litigation is pending between them and the second respondent regarding the possession of the shop premises bearing Nos. 111 to 114 situated in the Cotton Market Yard, Hubli.

In the meanwhile, first of the petitioners made a representation to the Marketing Committee stating tha;t the second respondent had obtained Commission Agent''s licence in his own name by mis-representing as owner or tenant in the premises Nos. 111 to 114 and that premises really belonged to the petitioners and they were the licensed Commission Agents having the same address in their licence and action must be taken under S. 73 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966. But after some preliminary inquiry as disclosed by the records, the first-respondent Marketing Committee took no action whatsoever on the representation made by the petitioners and that resulted in a legal notice being issued/ to the, Committee by the first-petitioner. In reply to that notice the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee has stated as follows:

* * *

Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by the petitioners under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia contending that the order of the Marketing Committee at Annexure ''B'' is vitiated for not giving the reasons as to why it has not taken action under S. 73 of the Act.

The argument, if I may say so, is misconceived. Firstly the, communication cannot be construed as an order. It is merely part of the correspondence between the Marketing Committee, and the petitioners or their Counsel. All that can be made out by the text contained in Annexure ''B'' is that the Marketing Committee is, not prepared to take action on the basis of the representation, made by the petitioners. I have already adverted to the fact that a perusal of the records disclose that the Marketing Committee has applied its mind in as much as they have given notice to the second respondent regarding the statements and has discussed the same at one of the Market Committee meetings.

S.73 sub-Sec. (1) in so far as is required for decision in this case is as follows:

"73 Power to cancel or suspend Licences- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-Section (4), a marked Committee may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel a licence''''

From the above it is clear that it is only when the Market Committee passes an order either cancelling or suspending the licence that reasons have to be recorded. The power of the Market Committee to cancel or suspend is a power to be exercised suo motu or even on the representation of another

But if they fail to act on the representation that they should give reasons for failing to act is not to be interred from the language of sub Sec. (1) of S.73 of the Act. It is only when the licence is actually cancelled or suspended that reasons should be given. Therefore the petitioner grievance is imaginary. Their rights have to be adjudicated in the Civil Court and cannot use this Court under Art. 226 or the Marketing Committee under S. 73 of the Act to get those rights adjudicated.

In the result this writ petition is rejected without rule being issued.

This order is made after notice to respondents and after hearing the respondents'' Counsel.