Judgment : 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the 1st respondent - Director of Agricultural Marketing to consider the resolution dated 30.06.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent - Market Committee, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore and pass appropriate orders in terms of the recommendation made in the said resolution - Annexure-C, followed by the communication addressed by the Committee to the Director on 10.08.2012 vide Annexure-D. 2. Petitioner was a successful bidder to operate the weigh bridge belonging to the 2nd respondent on the basis of Leave and Licence Agreement entered into with the petitioner on an earlier occasion. The Leave and Licence Agreement was the result of a notification inviting tenders for auction of weigh bridge at Gate No.1 at Yeshwanthpur Market Yard published on 21.08.2004. According to the petitioner, he was paying regularly the licence fee to the Market Committee and that was how the licence was renewed from time to time. On 30.06.2012, the respondent -Market Committee passed a resolution as per Annexure-C. It took note of the fact that the maximum period for renewal of licence was 55 months and after expiry of the said period, fresh tenders had to be called for. However, as the petitioner had invested about rupees ten lakhs for removing the defects in the weigh bridge and increasing its capacity and further as there was no provision for reimbursing the said amount, it was found appropriate that either the weigh bridge had to be permitted to be operated by the petitioner on lease-cum-sale basis or the amount of rupees ten lakhs spent by him had to be refunded and in that regard, approval of the Director was required to be obtained. 3. According to the petitioner, the resolution passed by the 2nd respondent has been forwarded for the approval of the Director and the matter is not yet examined either by the Director or by the Government. It is also further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the resolution - Annexure-C, the 2nd respondent has referred to the practice followed by certain other APMC's who have allotted the weigh bridge for operation on lease-cum-sale basis and that the 2nd respondent indeed did not recommend anything new as it was suggested that the same procedure may be followed even in the case of the petitioner. However, without taking any decision on the resolution passed and to the detriment of the petitioner, the impugned tender notification has been issued on 17.09.2013 calling for fresh tenders for operating the weigh bride. It is in this background, the present writ petition is filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Padmanabha Mahale appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent No.1 in going ahead with the tender notification without considering the recommendation of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary and unreasonable and is, therefore, liable to be interfered with. 5. Sri Thimme Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.2 invites the attention of the Court to Rule 14 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market Yards) Rules, 2004 (for short, 'the Rules') to contend that as per the said Rule the Market Committee is required to allot weigh bridges on leave and licence basis through tender-cum-auction to the highest bidder and the initial allotment shall be for a period of 11 months which may be renewed by the market committee for every 11 months subject to a maximum of 55 months. He points out that the maximum period of 55 months having admittedly expired, fresh tenders have been called for and in fact, the petitioner has participated in the tender process, but his bid is lesser than the other bidders and therefore, the petitioner cannot now turn around and say that the tender process initiated is bad in law. He also points out from the records secured by him from the 2nd respondent that on 25.04.2013, the 2nd respondent has passed another resolution for allotting the weigh bridge by calling for tenders. 6. In the light of the respective contentions and the petition averments made, I have examined the matter at length. It cannot be disputed that the allotment of weigh bridges are regulated by the Rules referred to above. As per Rule 14(1) of the Rules, the Market Committee is enjoined with a duty to allot weigh bridges on leave and licence basis through tender-cum- auction prices. Petitioner was a successful bidder during the year 2004 and was, therefore, allotted the weigh bridge on leave and licence basis. As per Rule 14(1) of the Rules, the Market Committee is enjoined with a duty to allot weigh bridges on leave and licence basis through tender-cum- auction prices. Petitioner was a successful bidder during the year 2004 and was, therefore, allotted the weigh bridge on leave and licence basis. Rule 14 (6) of the Rules makes it clear that the initial allotment shall be for a period of 11 months which may be renewed by the Market Committee for every 11 months subject to the maximum of 55 months. It is also not in dispute that the assignment given to the petitioner has been periodically renewed and he has completed the maximum period of 55 months of operation on leave and licence basis. Hence, as per the Rules, the respondents are required to renotify the weigh bridges by calling for fresh tenders and allot the same in terms of the Rules. The said exercise is being done now. 7. The basis for the right claimed by the petitioner to operate the weigh bridges by seeking allotment in his favour on the basis of lease-cum-licence without following the process of public tender is the resolution passed by respondent No.2 on 30.06.2012. In this resolution, no doubt the 2nd respondent has made a mention of the petitioner having spent about rupees ten lakhs for upgrading the weigh bridge and for removing the defects. But, this fact cannot clothe the petitioner with a right to seek a writ of mandamus against the respondents to give the weigh bridge for operation in his favour on leave and licence basis without calling for tender or ignoring the process of tender already initiated as the same will tantamount to proceeding contrary to Rule 14 of the Rules. A direction which will result in violating the statutory rules framed cannot be issued by this Court. Petitioner is not entitled to seek such a direction. 8. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner has spent any amount for upgrading the weigh bridge and for removing the defects, it is open for him to establish his right and recover the same from the 2nd respondent in accordance with law.