Rule 21A permits exchange of market-yard sites for valid reasons with prior government approval.

The petitioner had been allotted Site No. D31, measuring 30 × 25 feet, in Block ‘B’ of the APMC Yard, Bandipalya, Mysuru.

It sought an alternative site in Block ‘A’, adjacent to M/s. Jyothy Traders.

After obtaining technical reports, the Director of Agricultural Marketing referred the proposal to the State Government, which rejected it.

The APMC subsequently rejected the petitioner’s request, stating that the Rules did not provide for an exchange or alternative allotment.

The petitioner challenged the State Government’s and APMC’s endorsements, relying on Rule 21A and alleging that other allottees had been permitted to exchange sites.

1. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the petitioner’s request was sustainable when the endorsements proceeded on the basis that the Rules contained no provision for exchange of sites, despite Rule 21A.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction granting the specific alternative site sought.

Rule 21A of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 permits a Market Committee, for valid reasons and with prior Government approval, to exchange godowns or sites.

Under Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, an administrative decision must be assessed on the reasons stated in the decision and cannot be sustained by additional reasons later supplied in pleadings.

The Court found that the endorsements rejected the request on the mistaken premise that the Rules did not permit exchange, without considering Rule 21A.

The APMC also did not dispute that other allottees had been permitted to exchange sites.

Its later objections—that the requested land was not formed as a site or incorporated into the layout, and that the petitioner lacked valid reasons—could not supplement the reasons in the challenged endorsements.

The Court therefore set the endorsements aside and ordered reconsideration, rather than directing allotment of the particular site.

Respondents 1–3 were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s request in light of Rule 21A and take account of the exchanges allowed to the identified allottees, within three months of receiving the order.

The Court did not direct that the requested alternative site be allotted.