Petitioner challenged the appointment of an Administrator over an APMC Committee. Relying on Principal Bench order in Sri Manjunth G, the court held the impugned appointment order as upheld in the larger judgment and allowed the petition in part.
Petition allowed in part; order appointing administrator upheld as per Principal Bench judgment in related case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION No.29554/2016 (APMC)
Between:
Basanagowda S/o Sanganna Meti Age: 56 years Occ: Chairman of APMC Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur … Petitioner
(By Sri Shivakumar Kalloor, Advocate)
And:
(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1 & R2 Sri Mallikarjun Basareddy, Advocate for R3)
2
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order Annexure-C dated 12.05.2016 passed by respondent No.1 in No.KRU:ME/19/Election/2016 issued by respondent No.1 in appointing respondent-2 as administrator and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Both the learned counsel are ad-idem that the issue involved in the present case was also involved in
the case of Sri Manjunth G v State of Karnataka , writ petition Nos.30969-30980/2016, decided by the Principal Bench at Bengaluru on 13.06.2016.
3
“OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER
For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
4
(4) Order No. PÀȪÀiÁE/19/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ/2016 dated 26.05.2016 - Annexure-B in W.P.No.30925/2016, Order No. PÀȪÀiÁE/19/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ/2016 dated ___.05.2016 – Annexure-B in W.P.No.29999/2016 and Order No. PÀȪÀiÁE/19/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ/2016 dated 12.05.2016 – Annexure-C in W.P.Nos.29448-29451/2016 passed by the Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee appointing Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District, Assistant Commissioner,
5
Lingsugur and Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi District to the respective Market Committees to exercise power of Market Committee and the Chairman of such committees, are hereby upheld.
(5) Order No. PÀȪÀiÁE/23/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ/2016 dated 11.05.2016 - Annexure-B in W.P.No.31704/2016 and W.P.No.31485/2016 respectively passed by Additional Director (Administration) are hereby quashed and held that jurisdictional Tahsildars of Mandya District and Chickmagalur District would be empowered to exercise powers and perform the functions of chairman and the Market Committee until new Market Committee is re-constituted.
Ordered accordingly.
6
All pending applications stand consigned to
file.
Registry shall make available the operative portion of this order to the learned Advocates appearing for respondents to enable them to comply with the directions issued hereinabove”.
Therefore, the petition is hereby allowed in part, in terms of the order quoted above.
Sd/JUDGE
msr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents are justified in appointing an Administrator over the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee?
Whether to uphold the validity of Section 42 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sri Manjunth G v State of KarnatakaRelied on¶20
Sri Manjunth G v State of Karnataka
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Basanagowda S/o Sanganna Meti
The Director Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
The Asst. Commissioner Lingasugur
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
Raghavendra S. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
