Unsubstantiated allegations and unraised grievances do not warrant quashing an agricultural marketing policy.

The petitions under Article 226 challenged the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Policy, 2013, and related proceedings; the petitioners in W.P. No. 55908 of 2017 also challenged the Government Order dated 6 January 2014.

The petitioners alleged, among other things, that functions of statutory authorities had been delegated to private entities and that agricultural-producer and market data faced a risk of leakage.

The Court recorded that the petitioners had not raised their grievances before the APMC or the Government, and that no objections or evidence of difficulties or data leakage were on record.

A prior challenge to the e-marketing arrangements had been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench on 25 January 2019.

The Court heard counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 10029 of 2021; there was no appearance for the petitioners in the connected petition.

1. Whether the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Policy, 2013, was liable to be quashed as unconstitutional or ultra vires on the grounds raised by the petitioners.

2. Whether the allegations of delegation of statutory functions and risk of data leakage were supported by material warranting relief under Article 226.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The judgment did not identify or apply a particular statutory provision or formulate a separate constitutional test for reviewing the Policy.

Its reasoning turned on the absence of material supporting the allegations and the petitioners’ failure to raise their grievances before the APMC or the Government.

The Court also noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously considered the e-marketing arrangements and found no material regarding the alleged scam.

The Court considered the pleaded concerns about delegation and data security but found no supporting material.

It noted that agricultural-produce prices were available on a public platform and that the apprehended leakage of data was unsupported by evidence.

It also took account of the petitioners’ failure to submit objections to the Policy or approach the APMC or Government with implementation-related grievances.

In those circumstances, the Court concluded that the grounds advanced did not justify quashing the Policy or granting the relief sought.

It left the petitioners at liberty to raise any specific implementation-related grievances before the APMC or the Government, to be addressed in accordance with law.