Dr Dhananjay Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 6]

Karnataka High Court

Dr Dhananjay Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2017

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

                                1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

           WRIT PETITION NO.65700/2016 (APMC)

BETWEEN:

DR. DHANANJAY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE SEETHA REDDY
RESIDING AT BAYYAPPANAHALLY
DIBBURAHALLI POST, SADLI HOBLI
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 105
                                           ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PADMANABH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. H.SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF APMC
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE - 560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION
       M.S.BUILDING
       BANGALORE - 560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

3.     THE DIRECTOR
       AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
                                     2



     MARKETING COMMITTEE
     NO.16, 11TH RAJ BHAVAN ROAD
     P.B.NO.5309
     BANGALORE - 560 001

4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101
                                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.G. SHIVANNA, ADDL. A.G. FOR
    SMT. KAVITHA H.C., HCGP FOR R1, 2 & 4;
    SRI. MALLIKARJUNA C BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 16.12.2016 ISSUED BY R-4 AT ANNEXURE -
F AS THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.

2. This writ petition is filed to quash the notification dated 16.12.2016 issued by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-F as the same is not sustainable in law.

3. Respondent No.4 - The Deputy Commissioner, Chickkaballapur issued a notification on 08.11.2016 for holding elections to the A.P.M.C. As per the notification, 3 calendar of events have been issued. Notwithstanding the same, 2nd notification was issued on 16.12.2016 and the same was challenged before this Court in writ petition. The 2nd notification was quashed in writ petition Nos.63515/2016 and it was confined only insofar as Shidlagatta Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura district was directed to complete the election process from the stage where it was stopped.

4. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner has prayed to permit him to file nomination but the same was denied. Hence, he has filed this writ petition quash Annexure-F dated 16.12.2016 and to direct the respondent to accept the nomination to contest the election which is scheduled to 12.01.2017.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General and also learned counsel for respondent No.3 prayed to dismiss the petition and submits that the petitioner cannot challenge Annexure-F since he has no grievance and he has not filed 4 any nomination either pursuant to the 1st or the 2nd notification. Annexure-F was issued in respect of the other constituency other than Shidlagatta which was permitted in the nature of direction in the earlier petition.

6. Annexure-F notification relates to conduct of election of Chickballapur, Gowribidanur, Bagepalli and Chintamani Agricultural produce marketing committees. In the earlier order the Deputy Commissioner was directed to continue the election process from the stage where it was stopped. Petitioner is now seeking to permit him to file nomination. That stage having already passed through, not a case for interference.

Hence writ petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE BS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court