Kambi V.B. vs Secretary, Apmc, Bagalkot.

At the stage of preliminary hearing Sri Udayashankar, learned High Court Government Pleader was directed to take notice on behalf of the second respondent. The other respondents have been served except respondent-9, who is one of the members of the Market Committee. Respondent No. 1 is represented by a counsel. The petition is heard for final disposal itself.

In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought for quashing the resolution dated 28-5-1984 Annexure ''C'' passed by the Special Meeting No. 7 of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Bagalkot (herein after referred to as the Market Committee).

The petitioner is a member of the Market Committee. He was elected as Vice-Chairman of the Market Committee. A notice of no-confidence motion was issued by 1/3 members of the Market Committee as per Annexure ''B'' proposing to move no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Pursuant to that a Special Meeting No. 7 of the Market Committee was called on 28-5-1984. No confidence motion was moved and it was passed by the support of all the members except the petitioner.

It is contended by Sri Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceeding is vitiated because the notice of no-confidence motion is not in confirmity with Form No. 27 of the Forms prescribed under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rule 1966 (hereinafter referred to as rules). According to learned counsel the form prescribes that the reasons should be given for moving no confidence motion; that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the members who have issued notice for moving the no confidence motion cannot be held to be the reason because that will be the result and not the reason. Therefore it is submitted that the notice Annexure ''A'' is not inconfirmity with the form. Learned Counsel Sri Desai further submits that as per Sec. 146(3) of the Karnataka Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, (herein after referred to as the Act) form which is part of the Rules becomes the part of the Act itself as Sub. Sec. (3) or Sec. 146 of the Act provides that a rule under the Act may be made with retrospective effect and when such a rule is made, the reasons for making the rule shall be specified in a statement laid before the Legislature subject to any modification made under Sec. 149 every rule made under the Act shall have effect as if enacted in the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that Form No. 27 becomes part of the Act, and as such it is necessary to comply with it. It is also further submitted that Section 44 which governs the subject also provides that the notice has to be given in the form prescribed under Rule 49 of the Rules. Therefore the submission is that notice is not in accordance with law; hence the entire proceeding is vitiated. On the contrary it is submitted by Sri Udaya Shankar learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent and Sri B.G. Sridharan, Learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent that there cannot be any better reason than that one stated in the notice that the Vice Chairman has lost the confidence of the members who have issued the notice of no-confidence, therefore the notice Annexure-A does comply with the requirement of Form. 27. It is alternatively submitted that if there is any such defect, it is only a formal defect, as such is cured by Section 57 of the Act.

Having regard to the aforesaid contentions, the points that arise for consideration are (1) whether Annexure-A the notice of no-confidence motion is in confirmity with Form-27 as prescribed by the Rules (2) whether it is a case for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Points (1) and (2)

No. doubt, Section 44 of the Act provides that a motion of no confidence may be moved against the Chairman or Vice-Chairman after giving such notice as prescribed and such notice shall be supported by 1/3rd of the members of the Market Committee. Rule 49 of the Rules provides that notice of motion of no-confidence against the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Committee shall be in writing addressed to the Secretary in Form-27 signed by the member of the Committee who intend to move the motion and shall contain the signatures of not less than 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Committee supporting the notice. Form No. 27 is as follows:

"FORM 27

FORM OF NOTICE OF MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

To,

The Secretary of the Market Committee,

..........................................

Dear Sir,

I/We....................member/Members/of the Market Committee........................intend to move a motion of no-confidence against the Chairman/Vice-Chairman....................for the following reasons.

I/We declare that the facts/stated above is/are true to the best of my/our information and knowledge.

We support the above notice,

.....................

(Signature/s)

.............

............."

In the notice given by 1/3rd members of the Market Committee they have stated thus:

It is not the contention of the petitioner that the notice is other wise bad for any other reason. As per sub-section (3) of Section 146 of the Act. the Rules and the Forms do become part of the Act and they have to be considered as being part of the Act. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the statement made in the notice of motion of no-confidence that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the members who have subscribed their signatures to the notice can be considered to be a reason for moving the no confidence motion. It appears to me that there is no escape from the conclusion that the moving of no confidence motion on the ground that the Chairman or Vice-Chairman against whom the no-confidence is intended to be moved, has lost the confidence of the members of the Committee who have subscribed their signatures to the notice, is a valid reason for moving no confidence. If at all there could be any better reason for moving no confidence motion, it is this reason only. It is then only the question of moving the motion of no-confidence arises, Therefore, it is not-possible to hold that the notice of no confidence motion does not contain any reason. The contention of Sri Desai that losing of confidence is a result of certain acts of the petitioner and as such result cannot be considered to be reason for moving no confidence motion. It is not possible to accept this. In a case where the office is held by a person on election by the members of the Committee and the law governing the office provides for removal of the holder on his losing the confidence of the members of the Committee, the Office can be held by him as long as he enjoys the confidence of the members of the Committee who have elected him to hold the officer. Once he looses confidence, the members or the Committee are entitled to move no-confidence motion on the ground that he has lost the confidence. Hence, I do not see any illegality in the notice of no-confidence motion. It is in confirmity with Form No. 27 and it does not suffer from infirmity. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Even otherwise, no injustice is caused to the petitioner who does not enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members of the Market Committee and against whom no confidence motion is moved and passed in accordance with law. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution in such a case is not at all warranted. Therefore, this is not a case which calls for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.