Facts
Respondent No. 1 was initially allotted Shop No. 50 in the Yeshwanthpur APMC market.
Source reference: p. 3–7After that shop was allotted to a society pursuant to court orders, he was permitted to trade from other locations and carried on onion and potato trading in Shop No. 70 under a licence.
Source reference: p. 3–7Shop No. 70 was destroyed by fire in 2000.
Source reference: p. 3–7In 2021, the APMC passed a resolution proposing an alternative shop for him, comparable to the alternative shop allotted to the allottee of neighbouring Shop No. 69.
Source reference: p. 3–7The Director subsequently required him to produce the allotment letter for Shop No. 70.
Source reference: p. 3–7The Single Judge allowed his writ petition and directed the APMC to allot an alternative shop in accordance with the resolution.
Source reference: p. 3–7The APMC appealed.
Source reference: p. 3–7Issues
1. Whether the absence of a formal allotment letter for Shop No. 70 precluded respondent No. 1 from receiving an alternative shop.
Source reference: p. 6–92. Whether the Single Judge’s direction to allot an alternative shop warranted interference in an intra-court appeal.
Source reference: p. 7–9Law Applied
Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, provides for an intra-court appeal.
Source reference: p. 3, 9The Court considered whether grounds existed to interfere with the Single Judge’s order in that appellate jurisdiction.
Source reference: p. 3, 9It identified no separate statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.
Source reference: p. 3, 9The Court’s reasoning was fact-specific: the absence of a formal allotment letter did not, in the circumstances, defeat the claim where the material showed that the claimant had traded from Shop No. 70 under a licence and the APMC had passed a resolution proposing an alternative allotment.
Source reference: p. 3, 9Reasoning
The Court noted that the original allotment of Shop No. 50 was established and that material showed respondent No. 1 had traded in Shop No. 70 under a licence, notwithstanding the absence of a formal allotment letter for that shop.
Source reference: p. 7–9It also considered the APMC’s resolution proposing an alternative shop and the comparable alternative allotment made to the allottee of Shop No. 69.
Source reference: p. 7–9In those circumstances, it held that the Single Judge’s finding that respondent No. 1 was entitled to a similar alternative shop was not unwarranted.
Source reference: p. 7–9Holding
The Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the Single Judge’s order under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
The writ appeal was dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Source reference: p. 9Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 19611
Original Court PDF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKEIING COMMITTEE YESHWANTHPURvsSHRI N MANJUNATH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
