SANJIVA MATANDOORU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging the validity of Section 11 (1) (ix) of the karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act') to the extent of providing voting right to members nominated under this section.

(2.) HEARD Sri KM. Nataraj, the learned Counsel for the petitioner; Sri b. H. Satish, High Court Government Pleader for respondent 1 and Sri b. G. Sridharan, Advocate for respondent 2.

(3.) THE brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are as follows: the Act was promulgated with the object of providing better facilities to the agriculturists by regulating, establishing and administering the markets for agricultural produces and the matters connected therein in the State of Karnataka. The election to the respondent 2-Committee was held on 21-3-2001 to constitute a Committee under Section 11 of the Act. According to Section 11, eleven members will have to be elected from the agriculturists' constituency and one member each shall be elected from the traders constituency, representative of Co-operative Marketing Society, representative of Co-operative Processing Societies and one officer who is not below the rank of the Secretary of the concerned Marketing committee is nominated by the Director of Agricultural Marketing, who shall have no right to vote under Section 41 or Section 44 of the Act and the remaining three members shall be nominated by the State Government who shall have right to vote in all the meetings of the Committee. Section 11 (1) (ix) of the Act was inserted in 1997 which empowers the state Government to nominate three persons as its representatives in the Committee with all rights and privileges of the elected members irrespective of their qualification and mode of acquiring the membership. Voting power of these 3 nominated members is challenged by the petitioner in this case.