Allottees cannot cure default by tendering licence fees after the prescribed 15-day period.

The petitioner was allotted Shop No. 145 at the Dasanapura Sub-Market Yard on a monthly leave-and-licence fee of ₹61,500.

After depositing 25% of the amount payable for ten months, it was required to deposit the balance ₹4,61,250 within 15 days of the allotment letter dated 10 August 2018, but did not do so.

The Market Committee resolved to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount deposited.

In 2020, the petitioner sought re-allotment, offering to pay the balance, and cited disruption arising from relocation of the market and later business conditions.

The Committee rejected the request; the Director dismissed the petitioner’s review petition, and the State appellate authority confirmed those decisions.

The petitioner challenged those orders and sought possession of the shop upon payment of the balance amount.

1. Whether the authorities could refuse the petitioner’s request to make a belated payment of the balance leave-and-licence fee and obtain re-allotment of the shop

2. Whether the impugned endorsement and orders warranted interference under Article 226, including in light of the petitioner’s claim to treatment similar to another trader

Rule 16(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 requires an allottee to deposit, within 15 days of receiving the allotment order, the amount equivalent to ten months’ licence fee after deducting the earnest money already paid; the Court held that the Rule does not permit acceptance of belated payment.

The Court also referred by analogy to Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which an auction purchaser must pay the prescribed amounts within the stipulated time, failing which the sale is vitiated.

The petitioner relied on Sri Dhaneshwari Trading Company v. Director, Agricultural Market Department, W.A. Nos. 50262–50265/2013, and decisions in W.P. Nos. 2435–2436/2017 and W.A. No. 1334/2016, but the Court distinguished the cited comparison involving M/s. Ramabhaktha Traders because its allotment letter had not been served.

The petitioner admitted that it had not paid the balance within the prescribed period and had received the allotment letter.

Its explanations—business and relocation difficulties, followed by the COVID-19 pandemic—did not justify non-payment, particularly because the payment deadline arose in August 2018, before the pandemic.

Rule 16(1) provided no basis for accepting the delayed payment.

The Court also rejected the comparison with M/s. Ramabhaktha Traders: unlike the petitioner, that trader had not been served with its allotment letter, a circumstance that explained the exceptional treatment it received.

The authorities therefore acted within the applicable rules in declining re-allotment.

It left open the petitioner’s right to approach the Market Committee for release of the forfeited amount; any refund, in whole or in part, is to be made in accordance with law if the Committee considers it appropriate.