Case Note & Summary
The case involves two intra-Court appeals (W.A. Nos. 6870/2017 and 6871/2017) filed by Sri Chitturi Durga Rao and Nirmala Bagodi respectively, against a common order dated 13.12.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 41507/2017 and 41506/2017) which challenged the cancellation of their licenses by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), Gangavathi Taluk. The appellants, represented by Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, sought to set aside the Single Judge's order and allow their writ petitions. The respondents included the State of Karnataka, the Director of Agricultural Marketing, the APMC, and one Reddy Srinivas (private respondent). The appeals were heard by a Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the Division Bench found no merit in the appeals. The court noted that the learned Single Judge had correctly appreciated the facts and law, and the findings of fact were concurrent. The appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law warranting interference under Article 226. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, and the order of the Single Judge was upheld.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court in writ appeal declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge and the authorities below, holding that the appellants failed to make out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 1-5)
B) Agricultural Marketing - License Cancellation - Natural Justice - The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee cancelled the licenses of the appellants after following due procedure, and the appellants' challenge on grounds of violation of natural justice was rejected as the findings of fact were concurrent. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions challenging the cancellation of licenses by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, and whether the appellants were entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Both writ appeals are dismissed. The order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 41507/2017 and 41506/2017 is upheld.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of interference
- Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
- license cancellation
- natural justice
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (05) 4
Writ Appeal No.6870 of 2017 (APMC) and Writ Appeal No.6871 of 2017 (APMC)
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Counsel with Sri Venkat Satyanarayana A., Advocate for appellants; Sri V. Lakshminarayana, Senior Counsel with Sri K. Diwakar, Advocate for R-4; Sri Vikram Huilgol, HCGP for R-1 & R-2; Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, Advocate for R-3
Sri Chitturi Durga Rao (in WA 6870/2017), Nirmala Bagodi (in WA 6871/2017)
The State of Karnataka, The Director of Agricultural Marketing, The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Gangavathi Taluk, Reddy Srinivas
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-Court appeals against dismissal of writ petitions challenging cancellation of licenses by Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow their writ petitions to challenge the cancellation of their licenses.
Filing Reason
The appellants' licenses were cancelled by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, and their writ petitions challenging the cancellation were dismissed by the Single Judge.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 41507/2017 and 41506/2017) on 13.12.2017.
Issues
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions challenging the cancellation of licenses by the APMC.
Whether the appellants were entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the cancellation of licenses was illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
Respondents supported the Single Judge's order and contended that the findings of fact were concurrent and not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court in writ appeal will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity or error of law. The appellants failed to make out any such case.
Judgment Excerpts
These two intra-Court appeals are directed against the common order dated 13.12.2017, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the respective writ petitions.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and law.
The appeals are devoid of merit and are dismissed.
Procedural History
The appellants filed writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 41507/2017 and 41506/2017) before the Karnataka High Court challenging the cancellation of their licenses by the APMC. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 13.12.2017. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present intra-Court appeals under Section 4 of the High Court Act. The Division Bench heard the appeals and dismissed them on 14.05.2018.
Acts & Sections
- High Court Act: Section 4
