Rudramuni Cotton Industries and Others vs The Director, Agriculture Produce Marketing and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 2.1.2014 passed in W.P. Nos. 64493 and 64638/2010.

The appellants were before the learned Single Judge in the said writ petitions seeking that the order passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 1.6.2010 be quashed and directions be issued to them to approve the resolution passed by the third respondent as at Annexures-C and D to the petitions.

The appellants, who are licensees in occupation of the plots in the old market yard established by the respondents were desirous of possessing plots in the new market yard to be established by the respondents. In that regard, the Marketing Committee has passed a resolution allotting plots in favour of appellant No. 1. The resolution passed by them requires approval from the respondents 1 and 2. Since such resolution passed was not in accordance with law, the resolution had not been approved. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners were before the learned Single Judge seeking that the order passed declining approval of the resolution be quashed and direction be issued to implement the resolution by allotting the plots to the appellants.

The learned Single Judge on consideration of the rival contentions and on taking note the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of allotment of Property in market yards) Rules, 2004(hereinafter referred as ''Rules 2004'' for short) was of the opinion that the resolution dated 1.6.2010 passed by the third respondent was not in accordance with Rules, 2004. In that view, the relief sought for by the petitioners was declined. The learned Single Judge however made it clear that the dismissal of the writ petitions would not come in the way of the petitioners seeking for allotment of the plots in accordance with the Rules 2004 and liberty was granted to them to submit their applications as and when called for.

The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge would raise several contentions in order to contend that the resolution dated 1.6.2010 passed by the third respondent is justified since the appellants were occupants of the old market yard and in that view, since they are to be accommodated in the new market yard. Hence, such allotment of plots through the resolution is justified is the contention.

The learned counsel for the respondents would however point out that the appellants have not produced any material before this Court to indicate that the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge that the resolution is contrary to Rules 2004 is erroneous. In that light, a perusal of the Rules 2004 would indicate that a detailed procedure has been contemplated for allotment of plots in the market yard. When such procedure is contemplated, the third respondent ought not to have passed a resolution dehors such Rules and the allotment of plots could not have been made to the appellants. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge on this aspect of the matter is justified and the same does not call interference.

Having arrived at such conclusion, keeping in view the fact that the learned Single Judge had also granted the liberty to the appellants to file applications as and when the applications are called for, that aspect requires consideration. In this regard, it needs to be concluded as to whether the appellants could be permitted to file such application at this juncture.

The learned counsel for the respondents on obtaining instructions has placed before us a file relating to process that had been initiated for calling for applications. The notification dated 7.7.2014 is referred, whereunder the applications had been invited from interested persons seeking allotment of plots in the new market yard. The last date for filing such application was dated 22.7.2014. It is therefore contended that since the appellants have not chosen to file the applications prior to the last date, the case of the appellants in any event would not arise for consideration.

In that regard, it is no doubt true that the advertisement made by the respondents was on 7.7.2014. The learned Single Judge had disposed of the writ petitions on 2.1.2014. Though the instant writ appeals were filed on 8.9.2014 i.e., immediately subsequent to the date of the notification, the fact that the appellants continued to agitate their rights to seek sustenance of the resolution dated 1.6.2010 is evident. If that be the position, the conclusion of the litigation insofar as the claim made by the appellants seeking that the resolution dated 1.6.2010 would have to be considered is the date of this order whereunder we presently concluded the appeal.

While so concluding, we have also arrived at the decision that the appellants would not be entitled to claim under the resolution dated 1.6.2010. In such circumstance, when at the first instance, the learned Single Judge had granted the benefit to file applications to the petitioners as and when called for and the advertisement had been made in the interregnum and further since it is not in dispute that the process of allotment has not yet been completed, we are of the opinion that if the appellants are granted the liberty of filing the applications, the applications to be filed by the appellants would also receive consideration alongwith the other applications that has been received pursuant to the notification dated 7.7.2014. The consideration as per the Rules 2004 which would be made in respect of other applicants would also be applied to the case of the appellants and in such consideration, if the appellants were to succeed in the process of allotment, only in such an event, the appellants would be entitled to allotment and not otherwise. Therefore, the interest of either the respondents or any other applicants would not suffer.

At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on instructions from the officer, who is present in Court would submit that the second appellant has subsequently in the year 2012 purchased a plot in the new market yard from certain other allottee. In that view, a reference is made to Rule 7 of the Rules 2004 to contend that a person already possessing any plot in the market yard would not be entitled to allotment of plot. Since at present, no material is available before this Court to conclusively arrive at the decision at this juncture, it is necessary to observe that if infact the second appellant has purchased the plot, certainly, the applications that would be made by the second appellant based on the leave granted by this Court would not receive consideration by the respondents, as in the process of such consideration, an application to that effect would stand rejected in view of the provision contained in the Rules, 2004.

In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to receive the applications to be submitted by the appellants. If such applications are made by the appellants, the same shall be considered as per Rules 2004 in a similar manner as it would be considered in respect of any other similarly placed applicants.

In terms of the above, these appeals stand disposed of.