Karnataka HC Dismisses Shivamogga APMC Traders’ Challenge To Non-Notified Goods Notices, Bars Action Until Replies Are Decided

The petitioners, traders operating in the Shivamogga APMC yard under licences, challenged notices dated 12 September 2025 requiring them to show cause why action should not be taken for dealing in non-notified products.

Some petitioners claimed their goods—including processed products and other commodities—were allied products derived from notified agricultural produce; others contended that their trading did not require APMC permission.

They also argued that the Secretary lacked authority to determine whether goods were notified.

After submitting a consolidated reply on 16 September 2025, the petitioners approached the High Court before the APMC had decided it.

The APMC maintained that it could regulate trading in the market yard and that the State, not the Committee, had authority to amend the Schedule.

The Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 defines “agricultural produce” by reference to the Schedule.

The Act regulates the marketing of notified produce: Section 8 addresses licensing and the places where notified produce may be marketed; Section 56 was cited by the APMC as the basis for the Secretary’s duties, while Section 63 concerns the Committee’s regulation of market-yard activities.

Under Section 152-A, the State Government may amend the Schedule.

The petitioners relied on *Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Bombay Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee*, (2020) 11 SCC 623, concerning the agricultural character of processed products derived from notified crops; the Court noted that reliance but did not decide its application to the goods at issue.

The operative principle was that, where the authority had issued show-cause notices and the petitioners had replied, the Court would not intervene before the authority decided those replies; the Committee was to decide the matter after hearing the petitioners and in accordance with law.

The Court treated the petitions as premature.

The petitioners had already submitted a consolidated reply, but the APMC had not yet decided whether the goods in question were non-notified, whether they could be traded in the market yard, or what action, if any, was warranted.

Because the Committee was responsible for regulating market-yard activities, it could call upon the petitioners to respond to the allegations.

The Court therefore declined to determine the broader dispute about whether particular goods were allied products or whether the notices were ultimately sustainable, leaving those questions for the APMC’s reasoned decision after hearing the petitioners.

It permitted the petitioners to file any further reply within ten days of receiving the order and directed the APMC to consider the earlier consolidated reply and any further reply, hear the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months thereafter.

Until then, the APMC was restrained from taking action against them.