M.K.PATTANASHETTI vs THE DIRECTOR,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18426
WP No. 147053 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020021802020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.147053 OF 2020 (APMC)

BETWEEN:

M.K. PATTANASHETTI
OIL INDUSTRIES BADAMI
BY ITS PROPRIETOR
M K PATTANASHETTI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING,
RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.











2. THE SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,
BADAMI TALUKA, DIST: BAGALKOT-587201.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V.MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B.HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER DIRECTION QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.2018 PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.2 IN NO.KRA.U.MAA.SA(BA)/ABHIKE/474/ 2018-19 AS PER
ANNEXURE-C. II. WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.05.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-D. III. ISSUE ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION WHICH DEEMS FIT TO GRANT BY
THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.

Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18426
WP No. 147053 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020021802020


THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with the
following reliefs:
“i. writ of certiorari or any other order direction quashing
the impugned order dated 22.09.2018 passed by
respondent No.2 in No.KRA.U.MAA.SA(BA)/ABHIKE/474/
2018-19 as per ANNEXURE-C .
ii. Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to
consider the representation dated 14.05.2020 as per
ANNEXURE-D.
iii. Issue any other appropriate Writ or direction which
deems fit to grant by this Hon’ble court in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard, Sri P.N. Hosamane, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri Rajashekhar B. Halli,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri.
Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA appearing for
respondent No. 1.

3. The facts in nutshell to file the present petition
are as under.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18426
WP No. 147053 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020021802020



3.1 The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of
Sri. M.K. Pattanashetti Oil Industries, carrying on business
in edible oil and other agricultural related production,
which is established at Badami.

3.2 On 07.06.1994, on the application of the
petitioner, a site has been allotted in the APMC yard of
Badami by respondent No.1, on certain conditions i.e.,
construction of the building within the time prescribed.

3.3 A lease-cum-sale deed came to be executed on
04.01.1995 in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.2
in respect of open plot bearing No.14, measuring 20 meter
x 30 meter in R.S.No.119/1A at APMC Market yard,
Badami.

3.4 Though, there was a time line prescribed for
construction of the building, the petitioner failed to put up
the construction. In that event of the matter, the notice
came to be issued on 14.03.2014, followed by another
notice dated 22.09.2018 stating that the petitioner has not

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18426
WP No. 147053 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020021802020


put up the construction in terms of the order passed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.60511-512
of 2010. Thereafter, in the further notice, it was observed
that the petitioner was constructing the building without
obtaining permission from the concerned authority and
directing it to stop the construction. The petitioner has
constructed the building in the said plot and made a
representation stating that he has already constructed the
building and seeking permission to regularise the same.
4. Sri Rajashekhar B. Halli, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-APMC, Badami submits that the
construction was not within the time period granted by
this Court in the earlier point of time, however, the
petitioner has completed the construction but against or
without seeking any permission. In that view of the
matter, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
5. Having considered the revival submissions, this
Court is of the opinion that once the petitioner has been

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18426
WP No. 147053 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020021802020


granted time by this Court prior to the year 2014 to put up
construction, except issuing the notice in 2014, the
respondent has not taken any action as contemplated
under the APMC Act. It is on record that the petitioner has
commenced construction in the year 2018 and completed
the same as per the photograph at Annexure-E. This fact
is not denied by learned counsel Sri Rajeshekar Halli.
6. At this stage Sri P.N.Hosamane, learned counsel
for petitioner submits that this Court in W.P.No.104276 of
2025 (APMC) disposed of on 30.10.2026 granted another
period of one year time to construct the building on costs.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has already constructed the building and he is
ready to make good all the penalties, if imposed in terms
of law for regularizing the building and he submits that he
is also ready to pay reasonable costs for dragging the
respondent-APMC in 2 round of litigations before this

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18426
WP No. 147053 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020021802020


Court. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition passed the
following order:
“ORDER

(i) The writ petition is disposed of.
(ii) The orders passed at Annexures-H and J
dated 14.01.2025 and 28.02.2025 by
respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively, are
quashed.

(iii) The petitioners are granted one year from
today to put up the construction on the sites
in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the lease cum sale deed executed in their
favour while allotting plot Nos.21 and 31
respectively, failing which the respondents are
at liberty to take appropriate action against
the petitioners in accordance with law.
(iv) This opportunity is granted subject to
payment of Rs.50,000/- as costs to the APMC
Committee. Both the petitioners shall share
the same 50% each i.e., Rs.25,000/- each.
(v) The cost shall be deposited within four weeks
from today, failing which the order passed
today shall automatically stand recalled and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18426
WP No. 147053 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020021802020


the APMC is at liberty to take appropriate
action.
(vi) In the event the cost is paid within the time
granted, the petitioners shall be accorded one
more year to put up the construction from
today, lest it is for the respondents -
authorities to take appropriate action in
accordance with law.”

8. Since the building has already been constructed,
the APMC is directed to take action in accordance with law
to regularize the same. However, subject to payment of a
sum of ₹1,00,000/- by the petitioner as costs for
unnecessarily dragging the respondent-APMC committee
to this Court in two round of litigations.
9. The petitioner shall adhere to all the conditions
required under the Lease-cum-Sale Deed. If any
infraction, it is for the APMC to take action in terms of law.
10. The costs shall be paid within three weeks from
today, failing which the order passed today shall
automatically stand recalled.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18426
WP No. 147053 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020021802020


With the above observation, this petition is disposed
of .

Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE




















RKM,CKK
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41