Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, C. Vijaykumar, a market functionary holding a valid licence, was allotted Shop No. B-24 in the APMC Yard, Davanagere, in the year 2000. He carried on business paying market fees and complying with the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. In 2003-04, he inducted a partner, Sri D.R. Fareed, to improve his business. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order dated 7.10.2015 issued by the first respondent (Director of Agricultural Marketing) and to direct the respondents to execute a lease cum sale deed in his favour for the shop. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The court noted that the petitioner's case was based on his allotment of the shop and his compliance with the Act. However, the court found that the dispute essentially involved contractual obligations arising from the lease agreement between the petitioner and the Market Committee. The court held that no fundamental or statutory right was involved, and the remedy for enforcement of such contractual rights lies before the civil court, not by way of a writ petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the civil court if so advised.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Contractual Rights - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to execute a lease cum sale deed for a shop in APMC Yard. The court held that the dispute essentially pertains to contractual obligations arising from a lease agreement, and no fundamental or statutory right is involved. The remedy lies before the civil court, not by way of a writ petition. (Paras 2-5) B) Agricultural Marketing - Lease of Shops - Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 - The petitioner, a market functionary, was allotted a shop in the year 2000 and inducted a partner in 2003-04. The court observed that the relationship between the petitioner and the Market Committee is contractual, and the petitioner cannot compel the execution of a sale deed through writ jurisdiction. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for seeking execution of a lease cum sale deed in respect of a shop in an APMC yard, and whether the petitioner has any enforceable right to such relief.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that the dispute is essentially contractual and no fundamental or statutory right is involved. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- 1950
- cannot be invoked for enforcement of contractual obligations arising out of lease agreements
- remedy lies in civil court
- no fundamental or statutory right to compel execution of lease cum sale deed by Agricultural Produce Market Committee.
