Case Note & Summary
The case involves two intra-Court appeals filed by Sri Chitturi Durga Rao and Nirmala Bagodi against a common order dated 13.12.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. 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, under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. The appellants, represented by Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, argued that the cancellation was arbitrary and without proper notice. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka, the Director of Agricultural Marketing, the APMC, and one Reddy Srinivas (private respondent), contended that the licenses were cancelled due to non-compliance with bye-laws and that the appellants had an alternative remedy of appeal. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, after hearing the parties, found that the appellants failed to produce any valid license document and that the writ petitions involved disputed questions of fact. The Court held that the Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petitions without entering into factual disputes, as the appellants had an efficacious alternative remedy. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, and the order of the Single Judge was upheld.
Headnote
A) Agricultural Marketing - License Cancellation - Writ Jurisdiction - The appellants challenged the cancellation of their licenses by the APMC under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 - The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the appellants failed to establish the existence of a valid license and that disputed questions of fact existed - The Division Bench upheld the order, holding that the writ court was not required to enter into factual disputes and that the appellants had an alternative remedy of appeal - Held that the Single Judge's order was justified and the appeals were dismissed (Paras 1-10).
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 (APMC) without considering the merits of the case.
Final Decision
Both writ appeals are dismissed. The order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP Nos. 41507/2017 and 41506/2017 is upheld.
Law Points
- License cancellation
- APMC bye-laws
- writ jurisdiction
- alternative remedy
- disputed questions of fact
- Section 4 of the High Court Act
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (05) 5
Writ Appeal No.6870 of 2017 (APMC) and Writ Appeal No.6871 of 2017 (APMC)
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice, and 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) and Nirmala Bagodi (in WA 6871/2017)
The State of Karnataka, The Director of Agricultural Marketing, The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Gangavathi Taluk, and 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 APMC.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP Nos. 41507/2017 and 41506/2017 and allowing the writ petitions.
Filing Reason
The appellants' licenses were cancelled by the APMC, and they challenged the cancellation before the High Court.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 13.12.2017.
Issues
Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions without considering the merits?
Whether the appellants had a valid license and were entitled to relief?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the cancellation of licenses was arbitrary and without proper notice.
Respondents contended that the licenses were cancelled due to non-compliance with bye-laws and that the appellants had an alternative remedy of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The writ court should not entertain petitions involving disputed questions of fact when an alternative remedy of appeal is available. The appellants failed to establish the existence of a valid license.
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.
The appellants failed to produce any valid license document and the writ petitions involved disputed questions of fact.
Procedural History
The appellants filed writ petitions (WP Nos. 41507/2017 and 41506/2017) before the 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 appeals were heard and reserved, and judgment was pronounced on 14.05.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966:
- High Court Act: Section 4
