B.M. Revanna and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—Although the matter is listed for hearing on I.A., it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned advocates.

The petitioners who are the elected directors of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (''A.P.M.C.'' for short), Holenarasipura, have the grievance that the said A.P.M.C. is divided into Holenarasipura and Arkalgudu A.P.M.C. In this regard, they have challenged the notification, dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure-E) and the consequential orders, dated 05.1.2015 (Annexure-F and F1) appointing the third respondent as the administrator of both the A.P.M. Cs.

Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed objections to the draft notification. Without considering their objections, the final notification is issued. He submits that the petitioners are elected for a fixed term of five years in May 2011 and that therefore their term cannot be curtailed; they are to be permitted to discharge their duties as the elected directors of A.P.M.C. till May 2016. If one A.P.M.C. is to be reconstituted and divided into two A.P.M.C.s, it has to be after the expiry of the term of elected members. He submits that under Section 42(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (''A.P.M.C. Act'' for short), it is only on the expiry of the term of the office as the Chairman of the Market Committee that the Tahsildar of the Taluk can perform the functions of the Market Committee.

He submits that the impugned notification is issued for extraneous consideration. It is issued for political reasons. He submits that presently J.D(S) controls the Holenarasipura A.P.M.C. and another party, obviously the Congress Party, has got the impugned notification issued.

He submits that earlier Holenarasipura A.P.M.C. was a loss incurring Committee; the losses aggregated to nearly one crore of rupees. The present Committee has made it a profit making Committee and it is presently on the plus side by Rs. 1.5 crores. Overlooking the achievements and the reforms brought about by the present Committee, the impugned notification is issued.

Sri A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the draft notification is issued for political reasons is not one of the objections raised by the petitioners. He submits that they have raised only two objections (i) that the reconstitution of the Committee cannot be done before the expiry of the term of the elected directors. (11) the development-projects started by the present Committee would be affected adversely. Both these objections are considered and rejected. As the bifurcation of one A.P.M.C. into two A.P.M.C.s. is essentially a legislative act, there is no need to make point by point rebuttal of the objections raised. Nonetheless the objections are considered and rejected. In support of his submissions, he relies on this Court''s decision in the case of Smt. Tungamma and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, . He read out the following portion of the said decision:

"For the reasons stated points Nos. 1 and 2 raised by Sri Keshava Iyengar is answered as holding that "The Act of bifurcating an established market by a notification under Section 145 of the Act the State Government exercises Legislative power and not "Administrative Power" and therefore there is no obligation on the part of the State Government to follow the principles of natural justice like hearing the petitioners or considering their objections before issuing the notification. "

The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the two Taluks of Holenarasipura and Arakalgud had only one A.P.M.C. In the best interest of the farmer community, a decision is taken for constituting two different A.P.M. Cs. for two different Taluks.

Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 makes the submissions akin to those of the learned Additional Advocate General.

That the draft notification for reconstituting the A.P.M.C. is issued for political reasons is not one of the objections raised by the petitioners in response to the draft notification. Such a contention is being raised for the first time in the writ petition. The concerned authorities cannot be found fault with for not considering the objections which was never raised. That the existing Market Committee has done good service is also no good ground for resisting the reconstitution of the A.P.M.C. In any case, this Court cannot and does not propose to substitute its wisdom for the wisdom of the decision-makers as to whether there should be one or two A.P.M. Cs.

The only question that falls for my consideration is whether the reconstitution of the A.P.M.C. is bad, as the elected directors have not completed five years for which term they are elected. The consequences of reconstitution of the A.P.M. Cs are found in Section 145(1) and (2) of the said Act. The said legislative provisions are as follows:

"145. Division of market area into two or more separate market areas.--(1) Subject to the procedure specified in sections 3 and 4, the State Government may divide a market area into two or more separate market areas.

(2) (a) the market committee constituted for the market area under this Act shall be deemed to have been dissolved, and the State Government shall constitute separate market committees under Section 10 for each of the separate market areas subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, and the Director of Agricultural Marketing shall also simultaneously declare a specified area and a specified place as the market and the market yard for each of the new market areas."

A perusal of the afore-extracted provisions reveals that once the market area is divided into two or more separate market areas, the market committee constituted for the earlier market area shall be deemed to have been dissolved. The dissolution of the existing market committee is by the operation of law itself.

Thus not finding any merit in the challenge to the notification dividing Holenarasipura A.P.M.C. and Arakalgud A.P.M.C. and to the appointment of the administrator, I dismiss this petition. No order as to costs.

Now that the mam matter itself is disposed of, nothing survives for consideration of I.A. No. 2/2015 for vacating the stay. The same is dismissed as having become unnecessary.