Kashappa vs The Agriculture Marketing Dept.

B.S. Patil, J.—Proceedings dated 04.03.2014 of the APMC, Bidar, approving the tender submitted by one Vijaykumar for construction of a godown in the APMC main yard, Bidar and directing issuance of work order in that regard for completing the work within 165 days is called in question in this writ petition. A writ of mandamus is also sought to the respondents to consider the representations said to have been submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner is a Commission Agent and is the President of Grain and Seeds Merchant Association, Gandhi Gunj, Bidar. It is his case that in the APMC Yard Bidar, certain area has been earmarked as drying platform to enable agriculturists to dry their agricultural produce to dispose them off thereafter in the APMC Yard. This drying platform was shown in the approved layout plan and was meant for the purpose of drying food grains. Petitioner urges that without getting due approval for the modification of the plan and in violation of the approved plan, the APMC resorted to utilize a portion of the drying platform for construction of a godown.

According to the petitioner, when they noticed such an attempt made by the APMC, they gave a representation addressed to the respondents. No action was taken on the representation. On the contrary a tender notification was issued and tender submitted by one Vijaykumar was approved. Hence, petitioner claims that he has been constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

This Court directed the respondents to file statement of objections. On the previous occasion, a direction was issued to the learned Government Pleader to verify and produce the modified plan, if any, authorizing construction of the go down in the area earmarked for drying yard.

Respondent No. 4 has filed the statement of objections. It is contended by the 4th respondent that the scheme for construction of go down is indeed for the benefit of the agriculturists. If the farmers were unable to get proper price to their food grains, it would enable them to store food grains and other commodities in the go down constructed by the 4th respondent, so that they could properly store and maintain them. Hence, the construction of go down was not in any manner harmful to the interest of the farmers. It is also contended that already work was entrusted to a contractor after complying with the procedure for calling for tenders and at that stage, if the work is stopped, it would affect the interest of the farmers and the APMC will lose funds earmarked for this purpose which has to be utilized within a time frame.

By way of affidavit filed on 11.04.2014, the Secretary of the APMC has stated that as per the approved plan, there are two drying platforms measuring 150 feet x 110 feet abutting the proposed construction of the godown. He has further stated that there is another existing area measuring 150 feet x 70 feet meant for drying platform and the same was being utilized by all the traders/commission agents and hence, the construction of godown would not in any manner affect the facility for drying the food grains and other material. He has submitted a sketch along with the affidavit showing the remaining area meant for drying yard after construction of godown in a portion of the area.

Learned Government Pleader has today filed a memo along with three documents. The documents produced are, resolution dated 12.06.2013 passed by the APMC resolving to utilize a portion of the area meant for drying yard for construction of godown. This resolution is forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Department of Agricultural Marketing, Bangalore. The third document enclosed is a modified layout plan of the main market area of APMC Yard at Bidar.

A perusal of the third document, which is the modified layout plan of APMC Yard, Bidar, makes it clear that proposed location of the godown has been duly approved by the Superintending Engineer. The proposal to construct godown in the area has been approved by the Director. Thereafter, tender notification has been issued and the contract has been given to a contractor with a stipulation to complete the work within 165 days. Therefore, the contention urged by the counsel for the petitioner that as per regulations framed under the APMC Act, there was no duly approved modified plan enabling the APMC to put up construction by utilizing the drying platform is incorrect.

On consideration of the entire materials on record, I find that approval has been granted to the modified layout plan. As approved modified plan has been produced along with a memo by the learned Government Pleader which discloses that on 29.10.2013, approval has been indeed granted and an approved modified plan is prepared whereunder a part of the drying platform has been earmarked for putting up construction of godown, no illegality can be attributed to the action of the APMC. The contention of the APMC that there is sufficient area for drying platform and that the proposal to construct a godown has been in the interest of the agriculturists deserves to be accepted. As adverted to above, in the statement of objections, the 4th respondent has stated that sufficient area has been earmarked as drying yard.

Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.