Back
1970 Supreme(Kar) 109
Karnataka High Court
S.C.SOBAGAIAH - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - Respondent
Decided On : 08-11-70
W.P. : 3128 of 1970
B.TILAK HEGDE, Kadidal Manjappa, P.K.Shyamsundar
A co-operative society elected to a Market Committee from multiple constituencies is bound to make a choice of the constituency it proposes to serve as per Section 19 of the Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966.
Headnote:
Election - Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, Section 19
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were elected to the Market Committee. The petitioner alleged that the 3rd respondent, a co-operative society, failed to make a choice of the constituency it proposed to represent as required by Section 19 of the Act. The petitioner sought a writ to compel the Deputy Commissioner to make the choice and prevent the 3rd respondent from casting more than one vote at the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a co-operative society elected to a Market Committee from multiple constituencies is bound to make a choice of the constituency it proposes to serve as per Section 19 of the Act. However, as the 3rd respondent had not exceeded the reasonable time available to make the choice, and the Deputy Commissioner had not yet taken action, the court did not issue any writ or direction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 19 of the Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, and whether the 3rd respondent, a co-operative society, was bound to make a choice of the constituency it proposed to represent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a co-operative society elected to a Market Committee from multiple constituencies is bound to make a choice of the constituency it proposes to serve as per Section 19 of the Act. However, the court also determined that the 3rd respondent had not exceeded the reasonable time available to make the choice, and the Deputy Commissioner had not yet taken action.
Final Decision: The court did not issue any writ or direction in the Writ Petition.
( 2 ) AMONG the various constituencies from which members are elected to the Taluk Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Market Committee), there are two constituencies with which we are concerned in this case, viz. , the constituency of Commission Agents which is entitled to elect one member to the Market Committee and the constituency of the Taluk Marketing Co-operative Societies which is entitled to elect one member. The 3rd respondent is a society forming part of the second mentioned constituency entitled to elect one member. Sometime before the election, the 3rd respondent-Society also secured a licence to work as Commission Agents under the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act of 1966. At the election mentioned above, the 3rd respondent society figured as a candidate for election from both the said two constituencies. As required by Rule 4 of the Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1968, the 3rd respondent-Society nominated its president B. Channappa as the person to represent it in the Commission agents' constituency and also nominated one of its directors Mohammad khasim as its representative in the Taluk Marketing Co-operative Societies' constituency. It succeeded in both the constituencies.
( 3 ) THE results of the election were published in the Mysore Gazette dated 27th July 1970. Almost immediately thereafter, the Tahsildar of kunigal Taluk as the prescribed Officer under S. 41 of the Act issued notices to elected members convening a meeting of the Market Committee to be held on 11th August 1970 (today ).
( 4 ) THIS Writ, Petition was presented on 6th August 1970 and brought up for first orders yesterday. As Mr. Thilak Hesde, who was present on behalf of the 3rd respondent, took notice on Ms behalf and Mr. Shyamasundar government Pleader, took notice on behalf of the first two respondents- the Deputy Commissioner of Tumkur District and the Tahsildar of Kunjgal taluk, and as the first meeting of the Market Committee was scheduled to be held today, we posted the Writ Petition for hearing and final disposal this morning.
( 5 ) THE grievance nut fonward by the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent- society which is elected to the Market Committee from two constituencies was bound to make a choice of the constituency it proposes to represent as required by S. 19 of the Act. that it had failed to do so and that the Deputy Commissioner, who was bound to take action upon the 3rd respondent's failure to make a choice has also not acted in spite of the representation made to him by one Lingaiah one of the members elected to the market Committee. The prayers are for the issue of appropriate writ or direction calling upon the Deputy Commissioner to make the choice of the constituency which the 3rd respondent mav be or can be permitted to represent, and preventing the 3rd respondent from casting more than one vote at the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman scheduled to he held today.
( 6 ) THE main answer to these contentions,-apart from other technical objections,-made in the counter affidavit filed by Channappa, President of the 3rd respondent-Society, is that this is not a case to which the provisions of S. 19 apply, that the Society therefore was not bound to make a choice between the two constituencies from which it had been elected to the Market commtitee and that therefore the 3rd respondent would be well within its right to record one vote through its President Channappa as representing the Commissoin Agents' constituency and another vote through its director mohammad Khasim as representing the Taluk Marketing Society constituency.
( 7 ) S. 19 of the Act on the i
