YELI BENKAPPA Vs. SADASHIVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as a member of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee of Deodurg representing the Agriculturists Constituency from Gabbur village. After the election of the petitioner as a member of the Market Committee he was also elected as Chairman of the Market Committee and at present he is functioning as Chairman of Deodurg Market Committee. On an application filed by respondent-1 under Sec. 17 f the Act, the Deputy Commr of Raichur Dist passed an order to the effect that the petitioner is disabled to continue as a member of the Market Committee, Deodurg, as he is a partner of a firm which has secured Traders Licence from the Raichur Market Committee and therefore he suffers the disqualification set out in Sec.16 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has presented this writ peitition. THE relevant portion of Sec. 16 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation) Act, 1966 reads as follows :

(2.) THE disqualification mentioned in S. 16(1) (a) is attracted only if the petitioner has secured a trading licence from the Deodurg Market Committee and not from any other Market Committee. In support of the first contention he submitted that if a person suffered any disqualification for being chosen as a member of the committee, the objection on the ground of such disqualification has to be raised at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers or if such objection was not raised at that stage, his election could be challenged in an election petition filed under S. 21 of the Act. Apart from these two methods, there is no other provision on the basis of which a person who is" elected can, be removed from the membership on the basis of disqualification alleged to be existing before or at the time of his nomination. He further submitted that the power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under S. 17 of the Act can be exercised only against an elected member who becomes subject to any disqualification mentioned in S. 16 of the Act after the date of his election. In support of the above contention, the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commissioner v. Saka Venkata Rao 1953 SCR. 1144. . In the said case, the Supreme Court interpreted Arts. 190, 191 and 192 of the Constitution. THE wording of Art. 191 which sets out disqualification for a person for being chosen as or being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council is similar to S. 16 of the Act. Similarly, the provisions of Art. 190(3) read with Art. 192(1) which provides for vacating of a seat by an elected member who becomes subject to any disqualification mentioned in clause (1) of Art. 191, is similar to the wording of S. 17 of the Act. On interpreting these provisions, the Supreme Court held that Art. 190(3) and 192(1) are applicable only to disqualification to which a member becomes subject after he is elected as such, and that neither the Governor nor the Ejection Commission has jurisdiction to enquire into the disqualification which arose long before his election. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, it has. to be held that the disqualification on the basis of which a member can be removed from the membership of the Market Committee under S. 17 (2) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner is the disqualification mentioned in S. 16(1) (a) of the Act to which the concerned member becomes subject to, after his election and not to any disqualification which he suffered before the date of election. THErefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not have exercised his powers under sub-sec.(2) of S. 17 of the Act, declaring that the petitioner has become ineligible to continue as a member of the Market Committee on the basis of the alleged disqualification which according to the Deputy Commissioner existed ever before the date of the election of the petitioner as a member of the Market Committee. As I am accepting the first contention urged for the petitioner, it is unnecessary to examine the second contention urged for the petitioner namely that the disqualification under S. 16(1) (a) arises only if the person has secured a licence from the concerned Market Committee and . not from a different Market Committee. For the reasons aforesaid, rule is made absolute. THE impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur (Ex. A) dated Nil. is quashed. THE petitioner will be entitled to the costs of the petition from respondent-1. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.