M S KANNAPPANAVAR Vs. PATIL SANNABASANAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for determination in this appeal is as to whether the representative of the institution referred to in Clause (vii) of sub-sec(1) of S.11 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is required to be elected in the manner and in accordance with the procedure in which members envisaged to be elected by Cls.(i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-sec(1) of S.11 are provided to be elected in the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(2.) Before proceeding with the consideration of the question posed, a few relevant facts bearing upon the question at this stage may be noticed.

(3.) The appellant was the sitting member of Hirekeroor City Municipal Council. Obeying the call Issued by the Deputy Commr under Rule 6 of the Rules, the Town Municipal Council of Hirekerooi, by an unanimous resolution, elected him as its representative to the Hirekeroor Market Committee. Respt-1 challenged the election of the appellant and sought the quashing of the resolution (Ext. 'A'), on the ground that there had been no election of the appellant in the eye of law, because for the appellant to have been validly elected, the same process of election as in the case of the members referred to in Cls. (i). (ii) and (iii) of sub-sec (1) Of S.11 of the Act ought to have been gone through