THARADEVI Vs. DIRECTOR,APMC,BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the notice dated 17.10.2013 issued by the Secretary of 2nd respondent - Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Batawade, Tumkur (for short, 'APMC'), thereby convening the meeting regarding the no-confidence motion moved against the petitioner on 29.10.2013 at 11.00 a.m. on the requisition submitted by the members of the APMC. As many as 12 elected members of the respondent-APMC have addressed a letter dated 30.09.2013 expressing their intention to a move a no-confidence motion to the Secretary to convene the meeting of the APMC in that regard. This notice clearly states that as the present President-petitioner herein was not taking the other members into confidence and was making decisions unilaterally with regard to the affairs of the Committee without giving any deference to the views of the members, the members had decided to move the no-confidence motion against her and it was in that regard that they were requesting the Secretary to convene a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion. Based on the same, the Secretary has convened the meeting on 29.10.2013 by issuing the impugned communication dated 17.10.2013, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 44 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.M. Nataraj appearing for the petitioner contends that as per the provisions of the Act and the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Rules, 1968, (for short, 'the Rules'), particularly Section 44 read with Rule 49 of the Rules and Form-27 appended to the Rules, it is clear that a particular format is prescribed for submitting the requisition expressing the intention to move the no-confidence motion. In Form-27, the members are required to declare that the facts stated in the requisition were true to the best of their information and knowledge and the persons who support the proposal will have to separately affix their signatures. He urges that as this requirement of submitting the requisition strictly as per Form-27 and the Rules was not complied with, the notice issued is illegal. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the Pull Bench decision of this Court in the case of C. Puttaswamy vs. Smt. Prema, decided on 24.02.1992 rendered in W.A. No. 2332/1991 and connected case. Reliance is also placed by him on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ganeshsinha Domansingha Hajari Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division, 1963 65 BLR 722

(3.) I have carefully considered the pleadings, the documents on record and the contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel.