Karnataka High Court
M/S Goutam Trading Company vs Dr T Somashekhar S/O Sri. T.M Gowda on 20 September, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 15434-454/2012 & 15455-57/2012(APMC)
C/w.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 15435/2012 & 15448-51/2012(APMC)
In Writ Petition Nos.15434-454/2012 & 15455-57/2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. Goutam Trading Company
Trader
S. G. Gung, A.P.M.C. Yard
Taluk and District: Koppal
Represented by its Partners
1. Ajaykumar
Son of Motilal Jangada
Age: 37 years, Occupation: Business
2. Chanchalabai
Wife of Vimalchand Jangada
Age: 39 years, Occupation: Business
3. Goutamchand
Son of Bhavarlal Jangada
Age: 57 years, Occupation: Business
2
4. Vijaykumar
Son of Bhavarlal Jangada
Age: 38 years, Occupation: Business
5. Jeetendrakumar
Son of Bhavarlal Jangada
Age: 36 years, Occupation: Business
All are residents of Koppal
Taluk and District: Koppal
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. F. V. Patil and Nandish Patil, Advocates)
AND:
Dr. T. Somashekhar
Son of Sri. T. M. Gowda
Age: 58 years, Additional Director (Enforcement Cell)
Agricultural Marketing Department
No.16, 2nd Rajbhavan Road
Bangalore 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, Advocate)
--
These Writ Petition Nos.15434-454/2012 and 15455-457/2012
are filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India Read
With Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to
quash the order dated 06.07.2010 in C.C.No.379/2010 vide
Annexure-E passed by the Court of the Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Koppal and the order dated 08.02.2012 in
C.C.No.379/2010 vide Annexure-H passed in the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koppal in rejecting the discharge
application filed by the petitioners and etc.,
3
In Writ Petition Nos. 15435/2012 & 15448-51/2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. G. J. Bohra
Jawahar Road
Taluk and District: Koppal
Represented by its Partners
1. Mahaveerchand
Son of Late Mohanlal Jangada
Age: 60 years, Occupation: Business
2. Goutamchand
Son of Manikchand Jangada
Age: 57 years, Occupation: Business
3. Kamalchand
Son of Late Manikchand Jangada
Age: 50 years, Occupation: Business
4. Gyanchand
Son of Motilal Jangada
Age: 42 years, Occupation: Business
5. Rajesh
Son of Mahaveerchand Jangada
Age: 30 years, Occupation: Business
All are Residents of Koppal
Taluk and District: Koppal
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. F. V. Patil and Nandish Patil, Advocates)
4
AND:
Dr. T. Somashekhar
Son of Sri. T. M. Gowda
Age: 58 years, Additional Director (Enforcement Cell)
Agricultural Marketing Department
No.16, 2nd Rajbhavan Road
Bangalore 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, Advocate)
---
These Writ Petition Nos.15435/2012 and 15448-451/2012 are
filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India Read With
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash
the order dated 06.07.2010 in C.C.No.380/2010 vide Annexure-E
passed by the Court of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Koppal and the order dated 08.02.2012 in C.C.No.380/2010
vide Annexure-J passed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Koppal in rejecting the discharge application filed by the
petitioners and etc.,
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing 'B' group
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the issue that arises for consideration is identical.
2. The petitioners are the traders engaged in the business of marketing agricultural produce. It transpires that the petitioners were called upon to furnish stock book, purchase bills, sales bills, Form 5 No.35 and relevant records as regards the payment of market fee to the marketing committee in the usual course of inquiries in terms of Section 81 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'APMC Act', for brevity) . It is claimed that the petitioners were not in a position to furnish the material particulars that is required under the APMC Act. The petitioners had indeed complied with the demand by producing the photo copies of the relevant documents and the Director, on the basis of such production and on examination of the relevant records, had dropped the proceedings initiated to cancel the license of the petitioners. However, it is claimed that the Additional Director, of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) had issued a further order directing that prosecution be initiated against the petitioners for breach of Sections 114, 116, 117(A) and 122 of the APMC Act and proceedings had been initiated before the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal in Case Nos.379/2010 and 380/2010, respectively. The petitioners have entered appearance and have obtained bail. It is thereafter that in 6 the usual course of proceedings before the Magistrate, the petitioners had sought discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973(Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC', for brevity).
3. The petitioners having filed a discharge application and the same having been dismissed by this court, the present writ petitions are filed to contend that the proceedings initiated by the Additional Director in directing initiation of criminal prosecution, though there is no breach of any of the provisions of the APMC Act by the petitioners, is contrary to Section 58 of the APMC Act, as it is without jurisdiction.
It is contended that in terms of section 58(4-A), the State Government is empowered to constitute an Enforcement Cell and exercise such powers and perform all such duties as may be made, given, issued, exercised and performed by a market committee. It is by virtue of such delegation that the Additional Director has initiated the proceedings.
4. The learned Counsel Shri F.V.Patil would point out that under the said provision, the State Government is empowered to 7 constitute an Enforcement Cell, which can exercise such power and perform such duties of the Marking Committee in accordance with the provisions referred to therein and not beyond that, namely, Sections 63 to 71 of the APMC Act. Therefore, the Additional Director in having initiated proceedings and having passed the impugned order has acted pursuant to the power conferred under the APMC Act, under sections 81 and 83, which cannot be wholly without his jurisdiction as any such delegation of authority to act under those provisions is not provided for under section 58(4-A) and therefore, on that short ground, would seek that the proceedings be quashed.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - APMC would seek to justify the action of the respondent, who is impleaded by name and would submit that there is no illegality or other irregularity committed by the said authority and action of the said respondent is perfectly in accordance with law. He would submit that he has only acted on the basis of the delegated power by the State Government and seeks time to produce the order 8 whereby the State Government has challenged such power. He would also submit that Section 58(4-A) cannot be given the restricted meaning that is sought to be canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and read in consonance with Section 63, which provides the power and duties to the Marketing Committees and there is no violation of the law.
6. However, on a plain reading of Section 58(4-A), there is no power conferred on the State Government to delegate the power to an officer of the Karnataka State Administrative Service or the Karnataka State Marketing Service other than the powers exercisable under the provisions, which are specified under the said section. Hence, in view of the same, any delegation made by the State Government in respect of the powers other than the aforesaid provisions to which Section 58(4-A) is restricted, would be without jurisdiction and even if there is any such delegation it is not in consonance with law.
Therefore, on that short ground, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned annexures are quashed. It is open for the Marketing 9 Committee to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. Even if it is the claim of the petitioners that there is no case made out against them, it is for the petitioners to defend themselves in appropriate proceedings. In view of the said annexures having been quashed, the criminal proceedings pending before the court also would be bad in law and would be unauthorised. Consequently, the said proceedings pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal in CC No.379/2010 and CC No.380/2010 stand quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE nv