Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Jayaram, was elected as a member of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru, from Jigani-7 constituency reserved for backward class-A in elections held on 10.01.2013. He was subsequently elected as Vice President of the committee for a term of 20 months. The second respondent, the Director of APMC, passed an order dated 30.07.2015 under Section 17(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, disqualifying the petitioner from membership on the ground that he had failed to attend more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the committee held on 16.06.2014, 25.07.2014, 25.08.2014, and 07.10.2014. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking its quashing. The main legal issue was whether the disqualification was valid when the petitioner was not served with notice of the meetings. The petitioner argued that he had no knowledge of the meetings and was not given any notice. The respondents contended that the meetings were duly convened and the petitioner failed to attend. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act and held that before a member can be disqualified for non-attendance, it must be established that the member had notice of the meetings. The court noted that the respondent did not produce any material to show that the petitioner was served with notice of the meetings. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed. The court directed that the petitioner be reinstated as a member of the committee.
Headnote
A) Agricultural Law - Disqualification of Member - Section 17(2) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 - Notice of Meetings - The petitioner, a member of the APMC, was disqualified for non-attendance of four consecutive ordinary meetings. The court held that before a member can be disqualified under Section 17(2), it must be shown that the member had notice of the meetings. Since the respondent failed to prove that the petitioner was served with notice of the meetings, the disqualification order was unsustainable. (Paras 2-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Quashing of Order - The High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, quashed the impugned order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the second respondent disqualifying the petitioner, as the order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to show cause and without proper notice of meetings. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order disqualifying the petitioner from membership of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee for failure to attend more than three consecutive ordinary meetings is valid when the petitioner was not served with notice of the meetings.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the second respondent is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated as a member of the committee.
Law Points
- Disqualification of member for non-attendance of meetings requires prior notice of meeting to the member
- Section 17(2) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act
- 1966
- Natural justice
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
