SHARANA BASAVESHWARA TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the notification dated 07.10.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent -Director of Agricultural Marketing, Bangalore, under Section 6(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short, the Act) vide Annexure -A. By the impugned notification, exercising powers under Section 6(2) of the Act, the 3rd respondent has notified that for the purpose of regulating the marketing of agricultural products such as onion and potato, a sub -market yard is established at Dasanapura consisting of Mattahalli, Pillahalli and Vaderahalli of Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and that an extent of 67 acres 25 guntas of land comprised in various survey numbers enumerated therein shall be the area of the sub -market yard.

(2.) THE petitioners claim that they are the licensed traders in onion and potato and are carrying on their activities in the market yard at Yeshwanthapur. Their main grievance in this writ petition is that without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the impugned notification under Section 6(2) of the Act has been issued by the Director. It is also their grievance that without providing basic facilities necessary for carrying on trading activities in the acquired lands, notification inviting application from the traders for allotment of shops and godowns has been issued. It is their further grievance that although they had approached this Court earlier challenging the notification issued inviting applications for allotment of shops constructed in the market yard and though the said petitions were disposed of with certain observations, there was no bar for the petitioners to challenge the impugned notification issued on 07.10.2009 purporting to be in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6(2) of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent strongly submit that these writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners had already approached this Court on an earlier occasion and the very contention urged with regard to the alleged violation of the requirement stipulated under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act before issuing the notification under Section 6(2) of the Act has been canvassed and repelled by this Court. They invite the attention of the Court to the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 7389 -7658/2013, particularly to paragraph 7 therein to buttress their contention.