AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the notification dated 07.10.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent-Director of Agricultural Marketing, Bangalore, u/s 6(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short, the Act) vide Annexure-A. By the impugned notification, exercising powers u/s 6(2) of the Act, the 3rd respondent has notified that for the purpose of regulating the marketing of agricultural products such as onion and potato, a sub-market yard is established at Dasanapura consisting of Mattahalli, Pillahalli and Vaderahalli of Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and that an extent of 67 acres 25 guntas of land comprised in various survey numbers enumerated therein shall be the area of the sub-market yard.
The petitioners claim that they are the licensed traders in onion and potato and are carrying on their activities in the market yard at Yeshwanthapur. Their main grievance in this writ petition is that without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, the impugned notification u/s 6(2) of the Act has been issued by the Director. It is also their grievance that without providing basic facilities necessary for carrying on trading activities in the acquired lands, notification inviting application from the traders for allotment of shops and godowns has been issued. It is their further grievance that although they had approached this Court earlier challenging the notification issued inviting applications for allotment of shops constructed in the market yard and though the said petitions were disposed of with certain observations, there was no bar for the petitioners to challenge the impugned notification issued on 07.10.2009 purporting to be in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 6(2) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the legality and correctness of the present notification was never called in question in the earlier proceedings and therefore, the present writ petitions are filed assailing the same.
Learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent strongly submit that these writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners had already approached this Court on an earlier occasion and the very contention urged with regard to the alleged violation of the requirement stipulated under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act before issuing the notification u/s 6(2) of the Act has been canvassed and repelled by this Court. They invite the attention of the Court to the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 7389-7658/2013, particularly to paragraph 7 therein to buttress their contention.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings and the order passed by this Court earlier on 27.02.2013 in W.P. Nos. 7389-7658/2013 which is produced as Annexure-J, it is clear that in the said batch of writ petitions, some of the petitioners herein had challenged the notification dated 24.01.2013 issued by the Secretary of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Yeshwanthpur, inviting applications for allotment of shops and godowns in the new sub-market yard established at Dasanapura. Petitioners had urged the very contentions which they have now sought to urge contending inter alia that the procedure prescribed under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act was not followed before issuing the notification u/s 6(2) of the Act. Elaborating their grievance, petitioners in the said writ petitions, had contended that they had not been heard and no opportunity of hearing was provided to them although they were the established traders in onion and potato in the market yard at Yeshwanthpur. It was also urged that in Dasanapura sub-market yard necessary infrastructure had not been provided as the said market yard was not fully developed and therefore, it was not possible to shift their business from the present place at Yeshwanthpur to Dasanapura sub-market yard.
Detailed statement of objection was filed by the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Yeshwanthpur and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has passed the order dated 27.02.2013 in W.P. Nos. 7389-7658/2013.
In paragraphs 7 & 8 of the order dated 27.02.2013, this Court has observed as under:
Even in these writ petitions the notification issued u/s 6(2) of the Act nor the subsequent acquisition proceedings nor the formation of the sub-market yard is not questioned. Further, a reading of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act manifestly makes it clear that the same is applicable for the formation of new market yards. Sub-Section 2 of Section 6 of the Act specifies that the Director of Agricultural Marketing is entitled to issue notification for establishment of sub market yards. In the matter of issuing notification under sub-Section (2) of Section 6, it is not necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 3 & 4 of the Act. In the absence of questioning the notification u/s 6(2) of the Act, the acquisition of land and formation of sub market yards, the impugned notification for allotment of godowns cannot be quashed.
It is seen from the record that the petitioners through their Association gave a representation on 30.1.2012 as per (Annexure-C) to then Chief Minister of Karnataka requesting to take steps to form a sub market yards at Sriganda Kaval. On 8.3.2012 as per (Annexure-E), the petitioners'' Association gave another representation to the second respondent expressing certain difficulties to shift their business to the present sub-market at Dasanapura area. Similar representation was given as per Annexures-G & H dated 20.11.2012 and 6.2.2013 respectively. From these representations given by the Association of the petitioners'' it is manifest that they were aware of the establishment of sub market yards at Dasanapura area. Therefore, at this length of time and having regard to the developments that had taken place, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notification cannot be interfered.
It is thus clear from the observations made above that the very contentions that are now sought to be canvassed were indeed canvassed before this Court by some of the petitioners herein and the said contentions were repelled. This Court has found that on a reading of Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, it was clear that the same was applicable for the formation of new market yard, whereas sub-section 6(2) of the Act which authorizes the Director to issue notification establishing sub-market yard did not require such a procedure to be followed. It is thus evident that this Court cannot be now called upon to consider the same contentions that have been already considered and negatived.
Even though learned counsel for the petitioners is right in contending that the impugned notification of the year 2009 establishing the sub-market yard was not under challenge before this Court in the previous proceedings, the fact remains that even in the absence of such challenge, the petitioners had indeed taken up the legal contention regarding the alleged illegality committed by the Director in not following the procedure prescribed under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act before issuing the notification which is now impugned in these writ petitions. Based on such contention, this Court, after examination of the same, has pronounced that there was no need for following such a procedure while establishing a sub-market yard. If the petitioners were aggrieved by such findings recorded by this Court, they ought to have preferred an appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is not open for them to reagitate the same by filing these writ petitions in the guise of challenging the notification of the year 2009. Hence, without going into the other contentions which the respective parties have urged, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed only on the ground that in the light of the findings already recorded by this Court in the order dated 27.02.2013 passed in W.P. Nos. 7389-7658/2013. the present writ petitions for considering the same grievance regarding the infraction of the provisions contained under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act while issuing the impugned notification vide Annexure-A cannot be gone into. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not, in any manner, come in the way of the petitioners seeking other remedies which are given to them while disposing W.P. Nos. 7389-7658/2013 directing the respondent-authorities to consider the representations of the petitioners. Petitioners are at liberty to enforce the said direction which is already issued, if they are not complied with, in accordance with law.