Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vivekananda Mruthyunjayappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka, on 30 August, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
R
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
W.P. NO. 104398/2017 (APMC)
BETWEEN:
SRI VIVEKANANDA MRUTHYUNJAYAPPA
BETAGERI S/O SRI MRUTHYUNJAYAPPA
BETAGERI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF THADASA VILLAGE,
BYADGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI PADMANABHA MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING, NO. 16, 11TH RAJ BHAVAN
ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
2
4. BYADGI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BYADGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT.
5. SMT. VANITHA H. GUTTAL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC.: ADVOCATE-CUM-DIRECTOR,
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE,
BYADGI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
SRI F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH SECTION
16(1)(A) OF THE KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND
MARKETING (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1966
ONLY IN SO FAR EXCLUDING TRADER FROM BEING A MEMBER
OF THE MARKET COMMITTEE & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.08.2017 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED
THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
3
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Section 16(1)(a) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'APMC Act"
for short) only in so far excluding trader from being a member of the market committee and also quash the impugned order dated 26.05.2017 bearing No. Sa.E.69 MRE 2017 (Bha) passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-E and such other reliefs as sought for in the writ petition.
2. Heard Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. K. Vidyavati, learned AGA for respondents 1 to 3, Sri C.V. Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and also Sri F.V. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and also perused the records.
3. Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of arguments 4 has contended that the petitioner is an agriculturist by profession and he owns agricultural lands situated at Tadasa village, Byadagi Taluk, Haveri District. True copy of the mutation entry No. 1513 dated 30.08.1986 vide Annexure-A reveals that the petitioner owns agricultural land in the aforesaid village limit. Apart from owning agricultural land, name of the petitioner is also continued in the voters' list at Thadasa village, Byadagi Taluk. The 'APMC Act' is enacted for improved regulation in the marketing of agricultural produce, development of efficient marketing system, promotion of agricultural processing so also the development of effective infrastructure for marketing of agricultural produce.
4. Election to Byadagi APMC was held in the month of January 2017 as per the provisions of 'APMC Act' wherein the petitioner being an agriculturist by profession was nominated by the Government under Section 11(1)(ix) of the 'APMC Act'. Section 11(1)(ix) of the 'APMC Act' reads as under: 5
"(ix) three members shall be persons nominated by the State Government who shall have right to vote in all the meetings of the market committee and shall hold office at the pleasure of the State Government."
---
5. Notification dated 08.02.2017 vide Annexure-B produced by the petitioner in support of his contention shows that the Government has nominated the petitioner herein along with two other persons under Section 11(1)(ix) of the 'APMC Act'. In the said notification name of the petitioner was wrongly shown as Sri Vinayaka Mrutyunjayappa Betageri instead of Vivekananda Mrutyunjayappa Betageri. To correct the said mistake, a corrigendum dated 16.02.2017 vide Annexure-C was issued rectifying the mistake.
6. The facts stood as above, the private respondent No.5 herein seems to have made an application stating that the petitioner cannot be nominated as one of the member of APMC, Byadgi, alleging that the petitioner is a trader by profession. The Director, APMC, Bengaluru who sought information through the concerned Secretary, APMC, Byadagi, regarding the alleged complaint/ representation 6 given by the private respondent herein. Pursuant to the explanation sought by the Director, APMC, Bengaluru, the petitioner has given a detailed representation pointing out that the petitioner is an agriculturist and he owns agricultural land at Thadasa village. True copy of the representation dated 23.02.2017 is produced at Annexure-D.
7. The respondent No.5, namely, Smt. Vanitha H. Guttal filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. No. 103646/2017 seeking for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.02.2017 and as well as the corrigendum dated 16.02.2017 wherein the petitioner was nominated as Director of APMC, Byadgi. In the said writ petition the respondent No.5 herein also sought for a mandamus directing the 1st respondent therein to consider the representation dated 27.02.2017 and to take a decision in the matter. Though the said writ petition is pending for consideration the respondent No.2 herein without hearing the petitioner, without providing an opportunity to explain/ substantiate his case, has passed 7 the impugned order dated 26.05.2017 cancelling the nomination of the petitioner on the alleged ground that he has not possessed the requisite qualification under Section 16(1)(a) of the 'APMC Act' vide Annexure-E. Section 16 (1)(a) of the 'APMC Act' reads as under:
"16. Disqualification for membership - Without prejudice to any other disqualifications provided in this Act -
(1) a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, or for being, a member of a market committee-
(a) as a representative of agriculturists, if he or a firm in which he is a partner, or a body corporate (other than a co-
operative society) in which he is a Director, or a joint family of which he is a member, does business as a trader, (commission agent, broker, importer or exporter in any market area, or was doing business as a trader, commission agent, broker, importer or exporter, till such date not later than five years immediately preceding the date of election."
---
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti (1955) 2 SCR 1196; AIR 1956 SC 246; (1956) 29 ITR 349 to contend that, the statement of objects and reasons was used for judging the reasonableness of a classification made in an enactment to see if it is 8 infringed or was contrary to the Constitution. AIR 1963 SC 1241 State of West Bengal V. Union of India equivalent to AIR 1964 1 SCR 371 to contend that the statement of objects and reasons accompanying a Bill, when introduced in Parliament, can be used for limited purpose of understanding the background and the antecedent state of affairs leading up to the legislation. Hence the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 26.05.2017 is liable to be quashed in limine by considering the grounds urged in this writ petition as well as the aforesaid provisions of the APMC Act.
9. The respondents have failed to take notice of the provisions of Sec. 16(1)(a) of the 'APMC Act' applies only to the elected members and not to the nominated members. Though the petitioner is an agriculturist and even though he is qualified to be nominated by the State Government u/S 11(1)(a) of the 'APMC Act', the respondents without hearing and without providing opportunity passed the impugned order vide Annexure-E. The respondents have failed to notice 9 that while exercising the powers u/S 16(1)(a) of the 'APMC Act', is expected to issue a notice seeking explanation of the petitioner regarding the status as agriculturist.
10. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is not nominated under the Trader category alone as he is basically an agriculturist and a Trader in a partnership firm and is not liable to be disqualified. Hence, the impugned order vide Annexure-E passed by the respondent No.2 dated 26.05.2017 is liable to be quashed in limine as the same is passed by him without providing an opportunity to the petitioner.
11. Countering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has stoutly argued that the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Under Secretary, Department of Co-operation, wherein the constitutional validity of the u/S 11(1)(ix) of the 'APMC Act' nominating the petitioner is questioned on the ground that trader is being excluded from the membership of the marketing committee. It is misconceived that there is a 10 relevant provision so far as it relates to the nomination is concerned where the State Government has substituted the same by Act 20/2016 with effect from 27.07.2016. Section 11(1)(ix) reads as under:
"(ix) three members shall be persons belonging to agriculturists and among them, one shall be a woman to be nominated by the State Government, who shall have right to participate and vote in all the meetings of the Market Committee and shall hold office at the pleasure of the State Government."
---
12. From the plain reading of the provisions it is made clear that the three members will be appointed on the pleasure of the Government and they should be the persons belonging to the agriculture whereas the petitioner is a trader by profession. He is supposed to be an agriculturist whose name is found in the trader's licence right from the year 2014 and the petitioner has suppressed this fact. Annexure-R1 is a communication made by the Secretary, APMC, Byadagi to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Co-operation Department, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru, regarding the trade licence held by the petitioner . Annexure-R2 is the 11 voters' list of Commission Agents. Annexure-R3 is the list of candidates contested for Purchasers' constituency but due to political influence he has withdrawn his nomination. But by suppressing the above facts, the petitioner has managed to get nominated under Section 11(1)(ix) of the 'APMC Act'.
13. The respondent No.5 being an elected member of respondent No.4 had moved the Government for removing the petitioner. But, as the Government did not take immediate steps, she filed W.P. No. 103646/2017 seeking to quash the nomination of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of 11(1)(ix) of the 'APMC Act'. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 has placed reliance on Khusro Quaraishi vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2012 (5) Kar. L.J. 116 (DB) wherein this Court has observed as under:
"Right created by statute, held, can also be limited or curtailed by very statute - in the absence of some other competing right either under another statute or under the Constitution of India, right based on principles of natural justice, held cannot be claimed, in respect of such statutory limitation or curtailment - Where statute provides that person appointed to any office, holds office subject to pleasure of Government, person cannot 12 claim any right to be heard before removal, if removal is under doctrine of pleasure."
---
14. The aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that the right to vote under the Act is a statutory right created by the Act. Section 15 of the 'APMC Act' and Rule 3 of the 'APMC Rules' regulates to be qualified to vote, which reads as under:
15. Qualification for candidates for election.-
Every person, unless disqualified under the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, shall be qualified to be elected as a member of the market committee,-
(i) by an agriculturists' constituency, if his name is in the list of voters of any of the agriculturists' constituencies of the market area;
[Provided that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen from an agriculturists constituency reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes or for woman unless such persons belongs to those castes, tribes or classes or is a woman.]
(ii) by the traders' constituency, if his name is in the list of voters of the traders' constituency of the market area; and 2[(iii) x x x] Rule (3) reads as under:
3. Persons qualified to vote.-
(1) All agriculturists in a market area who are not less than [eighteen years] of age on 1st January of the year in which the list of voters is prepared shall be entitled to have 13 their names entered in the lists of voters of agriculturists' constituencies.] (2) No person shall be entitled to have his name entered in the list of voters for more than one agriculturists' constituency. If by mistake or otherwise his name is entered in two or more constituencies, he shall exercise his vote only in one constituency. If he exercises his vote in two or more constituencies, his votes in all the constituencies shall be deemed to be void.
(3) All traders other than retail traders in the market area shall be entitled to have their names entered in the list of voters of the traders' constituency.] (4) x x x x x.
(5) No person shall at any election vote in the same constituency more than once notwithstanding that his name might have included in the list of voters for that constituency more than once, and if he votes more than once, all his votes in that constituency shall be deemed to be void.
---
In view of the aforesaid provisions the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has sought for dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner as devoid of merits.
15. Learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 to 3 countering the arguments canvassed on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the writ petition seeking quashing of Section 16(1)(a) of the 'APMC Act' only in so far excluding trader from being a member of the market committee whereas the petitioner who has been nominated as per the provisions 14 of Sec. 11(1)(ix) of the 'APMC Act' vide Notification No. SE 69 MRE 2017 (BHA) dated 08.02.2017. The petitioner who has taken contention that he was disqualified for nomination as a member of the committee of APMC as per Sec. 16(1)(a) of the Act which was examined by the respondent No.3 being the Director of the APMC after examining the petition filed by the respondent No.4 submitted a report to the Government on 27.02.2017 wherein it was requested that petitioner is not liable to be continued as per 11(1)(ix) of the 'APMC Act'. Accordingly, nomination of the petitioner was cancelled. Whereas the core contention of the writ petitioner regarding doctrine of pleasure by removing the nominated members of the petitioner in the APMC. The provisions of 16(1)(a) of the 'APMC Act' reads as under:
"16. Disqualification for membership - Without prejudice to any other disqualifications provided in this Act -
(1) a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, or for being, a member of a market committee-
(a) as a representative of agriculturists, if he or a firm in which he is a partner, or a body corporate (other than a co-
operative society) in which he is a Director, or a joint family of which he is a member, does business as a trader, 15 (commission agent, broker, importer or exporter in any market area, or was doing business as a trader, commission agent, broker, importer or exporter, till such date not later than five years immediately preceding the date of election."
---
16. The petitioner was unable to prove that he was not a partner of M/s Betageri Trading Company which had obtained licence from the Director of APMC, Haveri wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at sl. No. 3 of the Traders' voters' list of the respondent No.4. The petitioner who has incurred disqualification under the aforesaid provision as such impugned notification is in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, the learned AGA has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
17. Having regard the strenuous contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AGA for respondents 1 to 3 so also the learned counsel for respondent No.5 are concerned, it is relevant to state the provisions of Section of the 'APMC Act' which reads as under: 16
Section 16 - Disqualifications for membership - Without prejudice to any other disqualifications provided in this Act,-
(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as or for being, a member of a market committee,-
(a) as a representative of agriculturists, if he or a firm in which he is a partner, or a body corporate (other than a co-operative society) in which he is a Director, or a joint family of which he is a member, does business as a trader,[commission agent, broker, importer or exporter in any market area] [or was doing business as a trader, commission agent, broker, importer or exporter, till such date not later than five years immediately preceding the date of election];
(b) as a representative of traders, if he has ceased to be a licensed trader;
(c) x x x] (2) a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as or for being a member of the market committee,-
(a) if he is less than twenty-one years of age; or
(b) if he has been sentenced by a Criminal Court for imprisonment -
(i) for an offence which involves moral turpitude and which is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months;
(ii) for an offence punishable under Sections 20, 21 or 22 of the Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976, such sentence not having been subsequently reversed or remitted; or (ba) if he has been convicted for an offence punishable under sections [114, 117 and 118] of this Act, such conviction not having been subsequently set aside; or] 17
(c) if an order is passed against him under Section 108 of [the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974)], in proceedings instituted under Section 110 of that Code, such order having not been subsequently reversed or quashed; or
(d) if he is an undischarged insolvent; or
(e) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or
(f) if he is a servant of any market committee, local authority or co-operative society or holds a licence from the market committee as a weighman, measurer, [surveyor or hamal]; or
(g) if, save as hereinafter provided, he has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any work done by the order of the market committee, or any contract of employment with, or under, or by, or on behalf, of the market committee; or
(h) if he is employed as a legal practitioner on behalf of the market committee or accepts employment as a legal practitioner against the market committee; or (hh) if he is a defaulter for a period of seven days or more by failing to pay the sale proceeds or other amount due to the seller, from the date of sale] ; or
(i) if he is a defaulter for a period of more than fifteen days by failing to pay any fee or other amount due to the market committee, from the date on which the bill in that regard is presented to him:
Provided that,-
(i) the disqualification in [sub-clauses (b)and (ba)] shall cease to operate after the expiry of five years from the date of such sentence [or such conviction, as the case may be] ;18
(ii) the disqualification in sub-clause (c) shall cease to operate after the expiry of the period during which a person is ordered to furnish security;
(iii) a person shall not be deemed to have incurred disqualification under clause (g) by reason of his,-
(a) having a share in any joint stock company or a share or interest in any association registered under the [Karnataka] Societies Registration Act, 1960, or in any Co-operative Society which shall contract with or be employed by or on behalf of the market committee; or
(b) holding debenture or being otherwise concerned in any loan raised by or on behalf of the market committee;
Similarly, the provisions of Section 17 of the APMC Act reads as under:
Section 17 - Disqualification of sitting member (1) If any member of the market committee,-
(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16; or
(b) if a member (other than an ex officio member) absents himself for more than three consecutive ordinary meetings unless leave so to absent himself has been granted by the market committee, his seat shall be deemed to be or to have become, as the case may be vacant and the same shall, immediately be intimated to the member in writing by the market committee};
Provided that where an application is made by a member to the market committee for leave to absent himself and the 19 market committee fails to inform the applicant of its decision on the application within a period of two months from the date of the application, the leave applied for shall be deemed to have been granted by the market committee.
(2) Whenever the[question whether a person is or has become subject to disqualification under sub-section (1) arises, (or whether on the date of his election the returned candidate was not qualified or was qualified to be chosen to fill the seat arises, the Director of Agricultural Marketing shall either suo motu on a report from the Secretary to the market committee or otherwise, and after giving an opportunity to the member concerned to be heard and holding such enquiry as he deems fit, decide the question and his decision shall be final.
(3) Any question for decision under sub-section (2) pending before the Deputy Commissioner shall, on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, stand transferred to the Director of Agricultural Marketing and such question shall be decided by him as if it had been reported to or initiated by him.] (4) Any election petitions falling under clause (a) of Section 21 of the Act pending before the Civil Judge on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) (Amendment) Act, 2013 shall stand transferred to the Director of Agricultural marketing and such petition shall be decided by the Director of Agricultural marketing as if such petition had been filed before him}
---
18. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner taken me through the contents of the notification at Annexure-E so also 20 the scope and ambit of Section 16 and 17 of the 'APMC Act' in respect of disqualification of membership without prejudice to any other disqualification provided in the aforesaid Act so also disqualification of a sitting member of the Market Committee. Whenever the question as to whether a person is or has become subject to disqualification under Section 16(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act which arises or whether on the date of his election the returned candidate was not qualified or qualified to be chosen to fill the seats, the Director of the APMC either suomoto or on a report to the Secretary of the APMC or otherwise, and after giving an opportunity to the member concerned to be heard and holding such enquiry as he deems fit, decide the question, and his decision shall be final.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents respectively emphasized in respect of doctrine of pleasure as the disqualification of the nominated member as being petitioner in this writ petition. Where the contention 21 even in the case where the Government acts in exercise of the power of "pleasure" it confers on it by a statute and revokes the nomination or makes a fresh nomination it should be supported by reasons and if not the act would be arbitrary, it cannot be sustained.
20. The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging Annexure-E, notification issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Department of Co-operation, Bengaluru dated 26.05.2017 cancelling the nomination of the petitioner herein under Section 16(1)(a) of the 'APMC Act' since he is disqualified for the said post. The said notification was ordered to be given effect immediately. Since the nomination of the petitioner was purely made on the basis of "pleasure of the Government" no reasons were given for canceling the nomination.
21. In ILR 1994 KAR 308 (Tamanna Vs. State of Karnataka) at paragraph No. 14 while discussing the case of Om Narain 22 Agarwal Vs. Nagar Palika, Shahajanpur (para no. 11) it is held as under:
"In our view, such provision neither offends any Article of the Constitution nor the same is against any public policy or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution. There is also no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in nor affording any opportunity to the nominated members before their removal nor the removal under the pleasure doctrine contained in the fourth proviso to Section 9 of the Act puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated members. It is done purely on political considerations."
22. The doctrine of "pleasure" came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Narain Agarwal Vs. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur (1993 AIR (SCW) 1254). In the said case two women members had been nominated on the pleasure and subjective satisfaction of the State Government. The Supreme Court has made the following observations on the pleasure doctrine at page No. 1263, which reads as under:
"The initial nomination of the two women members itself depended o the pleasure and subjective satisfaction of the State Government. If such appointments made initially by nomination are based on political considerations, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the Legislature authorized the State Government to terminate such 23 appointment at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place."
---
23. In the instant petition, the petitioner being nominated as a member in the aforesaid APMC, Byadagi, but it has been cancelled in view of his disqualification vide Annexure-E.
24. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention to the observations made by this Court in the citation stated supra referring to Sec. 16 and 17 of the 'APMC Act'. In case of exercise of power by the Government under 'doctrine of pleasure' there would be scope for judicial review, if it is also proved in a given case that the power was exercised with malafide intention and contended that, in the present case the notification is issued malafidely at the instance of respondents 1 to 3. The only allegation in the writ petition is not the impugned notification as the same is issued by the respondents 1 to 3 but there is vague allegation that there is grudge between the petitioner herein and the respondent No.5, who has filed W.P. No. 103646/2017. 24
25. From the records it would appear that the main ground contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner on which the petitioner was nominated as a member in APMC, Byadagi, but from the materials on record it appear that it cannot be held that the impugned notification vide Annexure-E is vitiated by malafides.
26. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and so also the learned AGA for respondents 1 to 3 are stoutly contending that the petitioner is having a trading licence and he being a trader and a copy of the licence held by the petitioner is produced as per Annexure-R1 which reveals his name in the voters' list of the commission agents and traders' constituency which is herewith produced as Annexure-R2.
27. On the basis of the said document it is contended that the petitioner has made an attempt to contest for the election of the Commission Agents and Traders' Constituency but the petitioner was not able to succeed. The election held for the 25 marketing committee in the year 2016, the process of which came to an end on 14.01.2017.
28. The respondent No.5 in this writ petition who filed writ petition No. 103646/2017 wherein the nomination of the petitioner was sought to be quashed in terms of the provisions of Sec. 16(1)(ix) of the 'APMC Act'. When the notice of the aforesaid writ petition which came to be served on the Government, the Government took steps to withdraw the nomination of the petitioner and as a consequence upon that, Annexure-E which is challenged under this writ petition, was issued by the Government of Karnataka, Co-operative Department.
29. In so far as the doctrine of pleasure is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khusro Quraishi V. State of Karnataka and Others (2012 (5) Kar. L.J. 116 (DB)) wherein it is observed as under:
26
"Right created by statute, held, can also be limited or curtailed by very statute - In the absence of some other competing right either under another statute or under the Constitution of India, right based on principles of natural justice, held, cannot be claimed, in respect of such statutory limitation or curtailment - Where statute provides that person appointed to any office, holds office subject to pleasure of Government, person cannot claim any right to be heard before removal, if removal is under doctrine of pleasure."
---
30. In the instant case, the petitioner being a nominated member to the APMC, Byadagi, was disqualified u/S 16(1)(a) of the 'APMC Act, 1966' and his nomination was cancelled as per the notification vide Annexure-E.
31. The Government considering the fact that the petitioner is a Trader by profession and hence incurred prohibition u/S 16 of the 'APMC Act' and thereby withdrawn the nomination by invoking the doctrine of pleasure. The various grounds urged by the petitioner and the decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioner do not support the case of the petitioner. The writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following order is passed. 27
ORDER Writ Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE bvv