PARAPPA Vs. NANDARAYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 7th july, 1997 passed by the learned single judge of this court quashing the show-cause notice dated 1-7-1997 issued under Section 17 (2) of the Karnataka agricultural produce marketing (regulation) act, 1966 (in short 'act') requiring the first respondent, nandarayappa, to explain as to why he should not be declared disqualified as member of the third respondent, marketing committee. L (a) pursuant to the election held on 25-4-1997, the first respondent was declared as an elected member of the third respondent, marketing committee from the agriculturists constituency. Being aggrieved by the said election of the first respondent, the defeated candidate, parappa, appellant, filed an election petition in No. 2 of 1997 before the jurisdictional munsiff, jamkhandi, under Section 20 of the ACT on the ground that the first respondent was disqualified to contest from the agriculturists constituency in view of Section 16 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the ACT since according to him the first respondent was a licensed trader and could not have contested from the said constituency. The said election petition is still pending adjudication on the file of the munsiff, jamkhandi.

(2.) DESPITE the pendency of the election petition, the appellant before us claiming as an agriculturist and voter under the third respondent, marketing committee, filed an application before the director, seeking disqualification of the first respondent on the ground that the said respondent could not have contested from the agriculturists constituency. Based on the said complaint, the director issued a notice under Section 17 of the ACT requiring as to why he should not be disqualified from being a member. The said notice was challenged by the first respondent by filing a writ petition before this court and the impugned Order was passed by the learned single judge, quashing the same by holding that the director has no jurisdiction to enquire into the issue of pre-election disqualification since the dispute of the present nature can be resolved only in an election petition to be preferred under Section 20 of the ACT before the jurisdictional munsiff.

(3.) SECTION 16 (1) (a) of the ACT reads as follows:from the above provisions it is clear that no person can be nominated or elected from the agriculturists constituency, if he is found to be carrying on business as a trader, commission agent, etc. , or if he is doing such business till such date not later than 5 years immediately preceding the date of election.