Karnataka High Court
Sri K Laxman Shetty vs Agricultural Produce on 10 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1199
1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION NO.45705 OF 2018 (APMC)
Between:
Sri. K.Laxman Shetty,
S/o Sri. Kumara Shetty,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o K.M.Road,
Mudigere Town & Post,
Mudigere Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District,
PIN-577101.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.V.R.Balaraj, Advocate)
And:
1. Agricultural Produce
Marketing Corporation,
Makonahalli,
Mudigere Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District-577101.
Rep. by its Chairman.
2. Sri. B.R.Chandrashekar,
S/o Sri. Rudrappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/o Bettadamane Post,
Gonibeedu Hobli,
Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018
Sri.K.Laxman Shetty
Vs. APMC & Ors.
2/11
Mudigere Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District-577101.
3. Sri. K.A.Ravi,
S/o K.A.Sannappagowda,
Aged about 42 years,
R/o Kunnalli, Halase Post,
Kasaba Hobli, Mudigere Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District-577101.
4. The Tahsildar,
Mudigere Taluk, Mudigere,
Chikkamagaluru Dist.-577101.
...Respondents
(By Sri. S.Chandrashekaraiah, HCGP
for respondents 1 and 4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
impugned order dated 05.10.2018 passed on I.A.R
/Sec.26(2) of the APMC Act, passed by the learned II
Additional District & Sessions Judge at
Chikkamagaluru in Election Appeal No.1/2018,
produced at Annexure-E.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Mr. V.R.Balaraj, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. S.Chandrashekaraiah, HCGP for Respondents No.1 and 4.
1. The petitioner Mr.K.Laxman Shetty has filed this Writ Petition in this Court on 09.10.2018 Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018 Sri.K.Laxman Shetty Vs. APMC & Ors.
3/11challenging the order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru staying the operation of the order passed by learned Civil Judge as Election Tribunal under Sections 20 and 21 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966.
2. The Election Petition filed by the petitioner against the private Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr.B.R.Chandrashekar and Mr.K.A.Ravi respectively, for the post of President and Vice-President of the APMC, Makonahalli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District came to be allowed by learned Civil Judge vide order dated 29.08.2018 in Election Petition No.1/2017 - K. Laxmana Shetty vs. B.R.Chandrashekar and Another and by the said order, learned Civil Judge inter-alia also declared Respondent No.1 therein - Mr.B.R.Chandrashekar to be Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018 Sri.K.Laxman Shetty Vs. APMC & Ors.
4/11elected to the said post in the APMC. The Respondent thereupon, filed an appeal under Section 26 of the said Act before the learned District Judge who, by the impugned order dated 05.10.2018, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere.
3. The reasons assigned by the learned District Judge in the impugned order are quoted below for ready reference:
"The counsel for the appellant contended that the election petition filed u/sec. 20 of the APMC Act by the respondent No.1 is not at all maintainable in view of the facts that the section 20 doesnot specifies the fact with respect to the reservation of constuancies and the trial court taking into consideration of sec. 15 of the same act with respect to the qualification of the candidates for the election and sec. 21 of the said act to declaring the election as void in the act. There is no such specification with respect to the Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018 Sri.K.Laxman Shetty Vs. APMC & Ors.
5/11reserving constuancies on the category basis. Therefore the counsel for the appellant prayed this court allow the I.A. for staying of operation and execution of the said order passed in El.P.1/2017.
On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that the trial court while passing the order has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and thereby the trial court clearly came to the conclusion that the appellant's caste is not Billava Caste which is comes under BCM - A as claim by the appellant but the appellant belongs to Hindu Vokkaliga Community which is comes under BCM - B and he further submits that the trial court has come to the right conclusion and allowed the petition of respondent No.1 in El.P.1/2017 on the basis of Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.17. Hence he prayed this court to dismiss the said I.A. as devoid of merits.
Heard the both sides on I.A.No.1.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018 Sri.K.Laxman Shetty Vs. APMC & Ors.
6/11ORDER The counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court with respect to Sec. 21 and Sec. 22 of the APMC Act and submits that the order of the trial court is not in accordance with section 21 and 22 of the said act as far as declaring the election of the appellant as void.
Hence, I.A.No.1 filed by the appellant is hereby allowed as the appellant has made out valid grounds to allow the same. Hence, the operation and execution of order dated 29.08.2018 passed in Election Pettiion No.1/2017 by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Mudigere is hereby stayed till the further orders.
Call for LCR by 23.10.2018."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before the Court that by staying the operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to even vote and occupy the office to which he was declared as Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018 Sri.K.Laxman Shetty Vs. APMC & Ors.
7/11elected by the learned Civil Judge and therefore, the said interim order passed by the learned District Judge deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
5. Section 26 of the Act of 1966 is quoted below for ready reference:
"26. Appeal against orders of Civil Judge.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Civil Judge under Section 20, 21, 22, 23, or 25, may within thirty days from the date of such decision or order appeal in the prescribed manner to the District Judge within whose territorial jurisdiction the market yard of the market area concerned is situate. The decision of the District Judge on such appeal shall be final and conclusive. The District Judge shall forthwith communicate the result of his decision or order to the Deputy Commissioner, who shall take steps either to publish the names of the persons declared elected or to hold fresh election, as the case may be.
Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018 Sri.K.Laxman Shetty Vs. APMC & Ors.8/11
(2) Any person intending to exercise a right of appeal provided in sub-section (1) may obtain an order staying any of the consequences arising on account of the order of the Civil Judge passed under section 20, 21, 22, 23, or 25, on deposit in the prescribed manner of an amount of four hundred rupees as security for costs in the Court of the Civil Judge apart from the amount of deposit, if any, made under sub-
section (1) of section 20. The Civil Judge shall order such stay on such deposit for a period not exceeding two months from the date of his order. If no further stay is obtained before the expiry of such period, from the District Judge or if such stay is obtained from the District Judge and the period of stay expires or if such stay is ultimately cancelled, the amount deposited or the balance, if any out of such amount after deduting the amount of costs if any of the parties opposing the appeal or the stay, awarded by the District Judge by his order in such appeal, shall be forfeited to the State Government by an order made in this Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018 Sri.K.Laxman Shetty Vs. APMC & Ors.
9/11behalf by the Civil Judge unless the District Judge orders the refund of the deposit amount or the balance of the amount, as the case may be, or any part thereof by an order passed in that regard at the time of his giving decision in the appeal or thereafter and such order is communicated to the Civil Judge.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, and endeavour shall be made to determine it finally within three months from the date on which the memorandum of appeal is presented to the District Judge."
6. A perusal of the said provision - 26(2) of the Act would reveal that not only the Election Tribunal (Civil Judge) who himself passes the order under Sections 20, 21, 22, 23 or 25 of the Act, may stay his own order on deposit of prescribed amount of Rs.400/-
for a period of two months and if no further stay is granted by the said Election Tribunal, then such stay Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018 Sri.K.Laxman Shetty Vs. APMC & Ors.
10/11order may be obtained by the higher Appellate Authority, namely, District Judge. The intention of Legislature in inserting Section 26(2) of the Act appears to be indeed to provide for a protection against the party losing in the Election Tribunal, in the first instance, who has failed the remedy by way of Appeal in the next higher forum and as such, decree or decision of the Tribunal to remain subject to the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal.
7. The staying of the operation of the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal by Civil Judge was therefore, an absolutely normal order in consonance with the provision of Section 26(2) of the Act and as such, the interim order does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. The rights of the respective parties to the Election Petition would naturally abide by the final Date of Order 10-10-2018 W.P.No.45705/2018 Sri.K.Laxman Shetty Vs. APMC & Ors.
11/11decision of the Appellate Tribunal of District Judge and therefore, the consequences arising from the order passed by the Election Tribunal (Civil Judge) have to naturally await and abide by the decision of the District Court or the Appellate Tribunal.
9. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Copy of this order be sent to the Respondents forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE dn/-