M. MAHADEVAIAH, S/O MUNISHYAMAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001 AND OTHERS

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.) ON consideration of the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the materials on record, the only question that requires to be examined is, whether the amendment brought to Section 42(1) of the Act restricting the period of tenure of the post of Chairman and Vice -Chairman of the APMC to 20 months or uptil the term of the Market Committee, whichever is earlier, affects the right of the petitioner to continue in the post of Chairman beyond the period of 20 months from the date of his election till the term of the committee which expires on 19.09.2012?