M. MAHADEVAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is elected as Chairman of respondent No. 5 -Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore (for short, 'the APMC') on 24.07.2009. The term of the Chairman of the Market Committee as per Section 42 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act') as it stood then was commensurate with the term of the Market Committee. The Committee was constituted for a term of five years which would expire on 19.09.2012. Therefore, the term of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman as per Section 42 of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment was till 19.09.2012 i.e., to say uptil the term of the Market Committee. By Amending Act No. 18 of 2010, the term of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman is restricted to 20 months or uptil the term of Market Committee, whichever is earlier, by substituting the earlier expression which stated that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall continue in office 'for the term of the Market Committee'. The Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, issued a letter dated 16.11.2011 directing the APMC, Yeshwanthpur, to hold election for the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and submit a report to him on the ground that the term of the present President - petitioner herein would come to an end on 15.12.2011. Pursuant to this letter, a meeting of the APMC, Yeshwanthpur, to hold election for the post of Chairman was convened by the Election Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore, vide his letter dated 02.12.2011 fixing the date of meeting on 14.12.2011. At this stage, petitioner has rushed to this Court challenging the communication issued convening the meeting and for a direction that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Chairman of the Market Committee till the expiry of the term of the Market Committee on 19.09.2012 as per the unamended provision of Section 42(1) of the Act.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, is that the amendment made to Section 42(1) of the Act is effective only from 16.04.2010 as it does not have retrospective effect so as to take away the right of the petitioner to continue to hold the post of Chairman till the term for which the Committee has been constituted, as this was the position that obtained under the unamended provision. The point canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that mere use of the word substitution does not amount co giving retrospective operation to the amendment. Tenure of office being a substantial right, in the absence of any express provision made giving retrospective operation to the amendment, the amendment is prospective and the same cannot be construed to take away the vested right of the petitioner, is the legal contention urged. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the following judgments:

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Nataraj and learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents Mr. Ajoy Kumar Patil, contend that the amendment brought to Section 42 by Amending Act No. 18 of 2010 is by way of substitution substituting the words 'for a term of the Market Committee', by the words 'for a term of 20 months or for the term of the Market Committee, whichever is earlier', therefore, the effect of substitution, having regard to the object and purpose of the amendment, makes it clear that the petitioner cannot continue as Chairman beyond the period of 20 months. They further submit that no vested right of the petitioner is taken away by the amendment as the amendment only determines the period. According to them, substitution dates back to the date of the enactment hence, the petitioner cannot continue as Chairman after the expiry of 20 months. Reliance is placed by the Counsel for the respondents on the judgments in the following cases: