SOMANATH Vs. VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th June, 2002 passed in W. P. No. 21020 of 2002 (Somanath v vijayakurnar and Others ), dismissing the writ petition with costs holding that the direction to allow the application Annexures-G and H for disqualification as prayed in the petition cannot be given.

(2.) IT is alleged that the election to the Committee of 17 Members of agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bijapur was held on 8-1-2000. Thereafter, the appellant was elected as Chairman of the Marketing Committee defeating respondent 1. It is alleged that the election of respondents 1 and 2 to the Committee is directly hit by Section 16 (l) (a)of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') as they are traders and not agriculturists. It is stated that the appellant does not belong to the group of the 6th respondent, who is a District Minister. When the appellant-Chairman refused to post the nephew (sister's son) as a Cess Collector in the main market yard, respondent 6 wanted the Chairman of his own choice, and he made the other members to initiate 'no confidence motion' against the appellant as per Annexure-F, dated 17-4-2002. Since some of the members complained, on verification, the appellant filed a petition under Section 17 of the Act along with application for stay (Annexures-G and H) before respondent 5 on 9-5-2002 stating that respondents 1 to 3 are to be disqualified. Since the 5th respondent did not pass any order on Annexure-H, the appellant-petitioner filed the writ petition on 21-5-2002 seeking for directions to respondent 5 to allow the application produced as Annexure-H pending final disposal of the petition filed as per Annexure-G; and to complete the disqualification proceedings as against the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two weeks; and to stay no confidence motion initiated as per Annexure-F, till the disposal of disqualification proceedings; and not to allow the 3rd respondent to participate in any meeting or proceedings of the APMC, Bijapur. The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 17-6-2002. Hence, this writ appeal.

(3.) MR. Umesh R. Malimath, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in relying on the decision in Parappa v Nandarayappa and Others. He submits that the case relied on is not applicable to the facts of the given case as in that case an election petition was pending and whereas in the instant case no election petition is pending. He submits that the learned Single Judge also erred in not directing the Director to dispose off the proceedings within two weeks and till then not staying 'no confidence proceedings'. He submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in not directing the 5th respondent not to allow the 3rd respondent to participate in the meeting as his membership is cancelled. He, therefore, submits that the order of learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Election Commission, India v Saka venkata Rao and in Inderjit Barua and Others v Election Commission of India.