B A HASANAHBA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUES of far reaching significance have fallen for decision in these two writ petitions which effectively concern the fate of the Agricultural Produce Market Committees (hereinafter referred to as the A. P. M. Cs) in the State of Karnataka. The question that has ultimately crystallised centres around the issue as to whether motivated nominations to elected bodies made in sufficient number as to alter the structure and decision making power of that institution can legitimately be justified as being within the framework of the democratic process and the subsidiary question that has arisen is as to whether an Ordinance issued at a point of time after the election process has been concluded is liable to judicial review and if so, to what extent.

(2.) THERE is not much dispute with regard to the factual position because these two writ petitions are effectively representative in character in so far as they concern as many as 134 A. P. M. Cs. in the State. According to the petitioners, these bodies carry out very important functions relating to a sizeable sector of the agricultural and trader community. They deal in transactions worth crores of rupees and it is their case that the functioning of these bodies is required to be essentially left to the aforesaid strata of citizens whose interests they concern. It is pointed out that the elections to these bodies had not been held for about one decade and according to the petrs. several efforts were made including obtaining judicial directions for purposes of ensuring that the elections were held and finally, in the year 1997, a decision was taken to this effect. The elections commenced on 1-3-1997 an ended with the declaration of results on 2-5-1997. The results were notified in the gazette on 5-5-1997. The petrs. have placed before the Court an indication of the relative strength which they have complied on a partywise basis because, like all elections these were also fought on a party affiliation basis. According to the figures placed before the Court, the Congress (I) secured 658 members, the Janata Dal 490 members and others 100 members. In terms of percentage, it workers out that the Congress (I) had approximately 49% of the candidates with the Janata Dal securing about 36% of the candidates. Normally, I would not have even reproduced these figures but I have done it for a limited purpose because the learned counsel appearing on both sides have advanced certain arguments in this regard and it could therefore be useful to have the factual data at hand. The petrs. state that under Sec. 39 of the Act the elected Committee is deemed to have assumed office immediately on the declaration of the results in the gazette and the next stage was that under S. 41 the two office bearers namely the Chairman and Vice-Chairman would have been elected and the APMCs. would have started functioning. The legislature was not in session at this stage and the petrs. allege that taking advantage of this fact, the Govt. hurriedly promulgated the Ordinance on 21-5-1997 whereby Sec. 11 of the Act was amended and sub-sec. (IX) was introduced which reads as follows :-

(3.) THE petrs. have challenged the validity and the vires of the Ordinance and this Court after notice to the Govt. and after hearing the learned Advocate General on behalf of the Govt. as also the petrs. learned counsel admitted the petitions and granted a blanket stay of the operation of the Ordinance. The Govt. carried the matter in appeal and the appeal Court slightly modified the interim order passed by this Court to the extent that the Govt. was permitted to go ahead and make the nominations but it was clarified that the elections to the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall not be held and that the interim relief as granted by this Court subject to the aforesaid modifications would continue. The State has filed its objections and the petitions being of immense importance in so far as it was pointed out to this Court that despite the provisions of S. 39 of the Act, that the elected bodies had virtually been put into cold storage and could not function because of the pendency of the litigation, which was why the petitions were taken up for out of turn hearing. Before proceeding, I need to record here that this Court is deeply indebted to the four learned counsel who have argued the case with a degree of thoroughness and competence particularly with regard tos the relatively delicate and complicated points of law involved in these cases.