Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohammed Shah Nawaz, proprietor of Shah Nawaz and Brothers, has been carrying on business as a licencee in the vegetable market at Kalaburagi since 2008 under a licence granted by the 4th respondent, the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC). The 4th respondent constructed shops to better regulate the yard and facilitate wholesale business in fruits and vegetables. The petitioner applied for allotment of a shop, but the 5th respondent, the Secretary of the APMC, issued an endorsement dated 21.10.2014 rejecting the application. The petitioner challenged this endorsement by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking its quashing and a direction to cancel the allotment in favour of the 6th respondent. The court noted that the impugned endorsement merely stated that the application was rejected based on a resolution of the 4th respondent, without disclosing any reasons or affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court held that the action of the respondents was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the endorsement and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application afresh, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and to pass a speaking order within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Rejection of Application Without Hearing - The petitioner's application for allotment of a shop was rejected by the 5th respondent without affording any opportunity of hearing. Held that the impugned endorsement is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. (Paras 3-4) B) Agricultural Marketing - Shop Allotment - Arbitrary Exercise of Power - The 5th respondent's endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application was based on a resolution of the 4th respondent, but no reasons were disclosed and no hearing was given. Held that such action is unsustainable in law. (Paras 3-4) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Quashing of Endorsement - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, quashed the impugned endorsement and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the endorsement dated 21.10.2014 rejecting the petitioner's application for allotment of a shop in the APMC yard is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement dated 21.10.2014 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application afresh after affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Audi Alteram Partem
- Arbitrariness
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
- Shop Allotment
