N A AMARESHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions raise common questions of law and the reliefs claimed in these petitions are same. Hence, these petitions are clubbed and are decided by the following common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners have approached this court for grant of the following reliefs:

(3.) THE present petitions contain more reliefs than the liberty reserved to the petitioners to file fresh petitions. As mentioned earlier, the petitioners have sought for a mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the notification dated 19-8-1988 at Annexure-B until compliance is made by the respondents of sections 6 (4), 7, 9 and 63 of the act. The further prayer that has been. Claimed is issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demand and collect market fee from the petitioners until executive orders are issued under Section 7 of the ACT after satisfying the bye-laws or resolutions passed by the 3rd respondent-market committee in implementing the intention of regulating the additional items introduced in the notification at annexure-b, dated 19-8-1988. These reliefs primiliarly appear to be not covered by the provision in the Order dated 15-9-1989 passed in the earlier batch of writ petitions referred to above granting liberty to file fresh petitions only for a direction to provide facilities or necessary infrastructure. The third relief claimed in these writ petitions appears to be covered the name, namely, to direct the 3rd respondent to provide all facilities including allotment of shops-cum-godowns to the petitioners in the market yard. Thus, while the first two reliefs appears to travel beyond the scope, liberty under the earlier Order dated 15-9-1989 in the other batch of writ petitions, the third relief may be said to be coming within the four corners of the permission granted by this court while dismissing the earlier batch of petitions. Therefore, this court has to consider only that aspect of the matter in these writ petitions.