M D DEVEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSTITUTIONAL validity of Section 44 (2) of the Karnataka Agricultural produce Marketing Regulations Act, 1966, has been assailed in this petition. Also under challenge is the validity of a resolution passed by the respondent-A. P. M. C. whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of the Chairman of the said Committee, on the basis of a "no-confidence" motion moved against him. An order issued by the third respondent-Director of Agricultural Marketing Committee dated 12th of november, 1998, under Section 44 (2) of the Act, has also been called in question. The controversy arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner was at the relevant point of time the elected Chairman of the respondent-A. P. M. C. A "no-confidence" motion was moved against him by as many as 15 out of a total of 17 members constituting the Committee. A meeting to discuss the motion was called by the Secretary of the Committee on the 10th of November, 1998. At the Meeting out of 17 members 5 were present all of whom unanimously voted for the no-confidence motion while two absented themselves including the petitioner herein. It is interesting to note that apart from the petitioner the only other absenting member was one Sri B. M. Swamygouda a signatory to the "no-confidence" motion moved against the petitioner, a copy whereof has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure-Q to the writ petition. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Committee the third respondent-Director of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee by an order dated 12th of November, 1998 removed the petitioner from the post of Chairman of the Committee. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the resolution as also the order passed by the Director on a variety of grounds. He has also assailed the constitutional validity of Section 44 (2) on the ground that the same suffers from the vice of excessive delegation in that the director has been empowered to issue an order of removal of the Chairman without there being any guidelines to regulate the exercise of the discretion vested in him.

(3.) MR. Vedavyasachar, Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the no-confidence motion had in terms of Section 44 (3) of the karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Regulation Act, 1966, to be discussed in the meeting before the same could be passed or rejected. No discussion was according to the learned Counsel, held by the members of the A. P. M. C. pursuant to the motion brought against the petitioner which was according to the learned Counsel, a clear violation of the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 44. Sub-section (3)of Section 44 may at this stage be extracted in extenso.