M/S Ramana Stores vs. The State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held that the petitioners had approached the High Court prematurely, even before the respondent No. 3 (Secretary of the APMC) had taken a decision on the consolidated reply submitted by the petitioners to the impugned notices. The Court found that the respondent No. 3, as the authority responsible for regulating marketing activities in the market yard, is entitled to call upon the petitioners to desist from trading in non-notified commodities. The Court directed the respondent No. 3 to take an appropriate decision on the reply submitted by the petitioners and notify the same to them. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 can take any necessary action deemed fit. The Court also granted the petitioners an opportunity to furnish further replies within 10 days, after which the respondent No. 3 must pass orders within two months after hearing the petitioners. Until then, no action is to be taken against the petitioners.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including M/s Ravi Enterprises and others, filed writ petitions challenging notices dated September 12, 2025, issued by the Secretary of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Shivamogga. These notices directed the petitioners to cease trading in commodities that were not notified agricultural produce or allied products under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Markets Regulation Act, 1966. The petitioners contended that the commodities they traded were either notified agricultural produce, allied products, or fell outside the purview of the APMC's regulatory authority. The petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the impugned notices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notices issued by the Secretary of the APMC to stop trading in non-notified commodities are valid, considering the scope of regulation under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Markets Regulation Act, 1966? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the APMC Act and its provisions primarily relate to notified agricultural produce and do not extend to commodities that are not notified or are allied to agricultural produce. They contended that certain commodities, even if agricultural produce, are not included in the Schedule to the Act, and the APMC Secretary lacks the power to include or delete commodities from this Schedule. They relied on the judgment in Britannia Industries Ltd. supra, arguing they are entitled to trade in non-notified produce. They also asserted that the Secretary is only empowered to issue notices regarding notified commodities under Section 56 of the Act. Revenue/State's arguments (Respondent No. 3): The respondents argued that the APMC Secretary is entitled to regulate trading activities in the market yard and is bound to regulate the trade of non-notified commodities by issuing appropriate notices. They contended that the petitioners are not entitled to trade in non-notified products and cannot claim them as allied products. They further argued that if petitioners wish to trade in commodities like maida, rava, sugar, wheat, aata, edible oils, and cattle feed, they must make a representation to the State Government under Section 152-A of the Act. They distinguished the Britannia Industries Ltd. judgment by stating the Maharashtra APMC Act was amended.