V A NADKARNI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by two petitioners. The first petitioner was formerly the President of the Taluk Development Board, Bhatkal. The second petitioner was the Chairman of the Kumta Agricultural Produce Market Committee. In this writ petition, they have questioned the validity of the notification dated 18-6-1975 issued by the State Government under S. 145(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dividing Kumta Market Area into two Market Areas and of the two notifications dated 18-8-975 issued under Section 145(2) (a) of the Act constituting market committees for the two new Market Areas.

(2.) There was a Market Area established under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, comprising of Kumta, Ankola and Honnavar Taluks and Bhatkal Petha of the District of North Kanara. The 2nd petitioner was the Chairman of hte said Market Committee. Being desirous of dividing the said market areas into two separate Market Areas, the Government initiated action under the provisions of the Act by publishing a draft notification stating that two Market Areas namely, Kumta Market area consisting of Kumta and Ankola taluks and Honnavar Market area consisting of Honnavar and Bhatkal Taluks would be established in the place of the Kumta Market Area which had jurisdiction over all the four taluks. It Invited representations and objections with regard to the above proposal. Some persons including the petitioner, filed objections to the proposal of the State Government. After taking into consideration the representations and objections and the opinion of the State Agricultural Marketing Board as required under S.112 of the Act, the State Government decided to establish two market areas as stated above in the place of the former Kumta Market Area. The notification which is questioned in this writ petition is the notification under which two market areas are established. The second and third notifications which are impugned in this case are those under which the State Govt nominated members to the Market Committees of the two new Market Areas.

(3.) Sri T.S.Ramachandra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, urged three contentions in support of the writ petition: