T C DASARAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these two petitions have questioned the validity or otherwise of the impugned Notification dated 13th February 2007 bearing No. SAYI. 184-MRE.2005 vide Annexure A in both petitions.

(2.) The grievance of petitioners in these two writ petitions is that, the first respondent - State Government has constituted (i) the second respondent - Market Committee, comprising of Chickballapur, Siddlaghatta and Bagepalli Taluks and (ii) the third respondent - Market Committee comprising of Gouribidanur and Gudibande Taluks under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966. Petitioners herein claim that, they are the elected members to the respective Market Committees for a period of five years. When things stood thus, it is the petitioners' case that, the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District has published the draft Notification for bifurcation of the second and third respondents herein, i.e. the two Market Committees as stated above into three Market Committees, viz. i) Chickballapur Market Committee, consisting of Chickballapur and Sidlaghatta Taluks ii) Gouribidanur Market Committee consisting of Gouribidanur Taluk and iii) Bagepalli Market Committee consisting of Bagepalli and Gudibande Taluks. Accordingly, the first respondent - State Government has issued the draft Notification on 3rd June 2005 intending to bifurcate the existing two Market Committees into three Market Committees and called for objections from the general public, particularly aggrieved persons. Upon receipt of objections filed by farmers and other persons of that area, the State Government has considered the same and over ruled the same in the larger interest and consequently, a final Notification has been issued on 13th February 2007 vide Annexure A in both petitions, bifurcating the existing Chickballapur Market Committee and Gouribidanur Market Committees into three Market Committees and appointed the Tahsildar as the Administrator to look into the administration of the said Committees. Being aggrieved by the impugned final Notification, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated above.

(3.) The principal ground urged by petitioners in these two petitions is that, the action of first respondent - State Government in bifurcating the existing two Market Committees into three Market Committees when the term of the duly elected members of the existing Market Committees is not yet over, is arbitrary, illegal and capricious. Therefore, the impugned Notification issued by first respondent is liable to be quashed at the threshold itself. Further, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that, the appointment of persons of the choice of first respondent as per Section 10 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act (hereinafter called the "Act"), for a period of two years is with legal mala fide and the impugned Notification issued is bad in law. Further, it is vehemently submitted on behalf of petitioners that, the action of first respondent in issuing the impugned Notification is illegal for the reason that, the said authority has failed to notice that, the term of the elected members is five years and that, the said term expires on 2nd June 2010 since they have been noticed to be the duly elected members on 3rd June 2005 under Sections 38 and 39 of the AMPC Act and therefore, the said authority does not have any right as such under the relevant provisions of the Act to curtail the term of petitioners in the middle of the term and they also cannot issue the impugned Notification. Hence, the impugned Notification issued at Annexure A is liable to be quashed. Further, learned counsel appearing for petitioners pointed out that, the action of first respondent is a colorable exercise of power only with an intention to remove the petitioners herein, who are duly elected members out of political vendetta. Therefore, the impugned Notification issued by first respondent is liable to be quashed. Further, he submitted that, the impugned Notification issued by the competent authority is liable to be set aside and the relief sought for by petitioners may be granted.