TUNGAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE members of the Elected Committee of the APMC, Davangere have filed this petition, challenging the notification of the State Government of Karnataka bifurcating Davangere AMPC into that of "davangere" and "jagalur" in exercise of the powers under S. 145 of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) PETITIONER's have contended in the writ petition that, at an election held on 24-7-97 petitioners and 2 others were elected for the committee, while 3 others were nominated to the Committee of Management of Davangere, APMC. The term of Office was for 5 years. The third respondent herein was elected as the President of the Committee. While the committee was functioning, respondent No. 1 issued a notification dated 28-6-99 vide Ann. B proposing to bifurcate the AMPC Davangere and inviting objections. Petitioner/committee had passed a resolution opposing the bifurcation; Though respondent No. 1 had notified the proposal but did not take any further action on this proposal, until a vote of no confidence was moved against the 3rd respondent. President on 15-11-2000 charging the later of showing undue favour of allotting certain land to Bapuji Bank under the control of the Hon'ble Minister Mallikarjun, similarly allotting two acres of land to the cold storage to one I. P. Vishwaradhya Chairman of sister concern of Bapuji Education Association besides selling shops to the tenants though the shops were fetching huge rents of Rs. 50,000/- p. m. and without prior sanction awarding contract to the tune of two and half crores. It is only to frustrate this No confidence motion, the 3rd respondent influencing the Minister got the final notification Annexs. E and E1 under S. 145 published. The notification Annexures E and E1 is liable to be quashed on the grounds that the notifications are issued without applying its mind to the objections filed and providing opportunity to personally hear the petitioners and also on the ground of (sic) with a mala fide intention to frustrate the no confidence motion.

(3.) RESPONDENT 2 and respondents 6 and 7 have filed detailed statement of objections to this writ petition.