THE TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY vs AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE & ORS.

Smt. Veena Hegde, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits memo with the copy of the report of the Deputy Registrar of Co-

operative Societies, Karwar District, dated 6/1/2018 in compliance with the Order of this Court dated 3/1/2018.

Heard.

The petitioner is a Co-operative Sale Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Registration Act. It is the member of the

first respondent/APMC. The respondents proposed to conduct the election for the APMC Committee, Sirsi the fifth respondent. One of the

constituency of the 5th respondent is Co-operative Marketing Society. The 4th respondent is the authorized officer under Section 2(12) of the

Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 r/w Rule 5 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing

(Regulation and Development) Rules, 1968 to conduct Election. He issued provisional voters list. The petitioner submitted its objection to the said

provisional list on 3/1/2017 before the 4th respondent.

In the objection, it was contended that in Sirsi Taluka there are only two Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Societies. But in Annexure-B

members of the other societies are also listed as voters. The 4th respondent by the impugned Order Annexure E dated 4/1/2017 rejected the said

representation on the ground that the representation is filed beyond the prescribed time and the voters list is already finalized.

Sri. A.P.Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the order on the following grounds:-

i) Rule 5A enables the authorized Officer to consider the objections till the last date stipulated for filing of the nomination papers

ii) Annexure-A the corrigendum issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society to respondent No.5 itself states that there are only two

Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Societies in Sirsi Taluka.

Therefore non consideration of Annexure-B causes irreversible injustice to the voters.

Smt. Veena Hegde, the learned AGA and Sri. Anant Hegde, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 10 seek to justify the order on the

following grounds:-

i) As against the impugned order under Rule 5(16)(a) there is alternate remedy of appeal before the 2nd respondent-the Director of Agricultural

Produce Marketing Committee. Therefore the petition is not maintainable.

ii) The objections are filed beyond the time prescribed

iii) Rule 5A can be invoked only in the circumstances enumerated in Rule 5A(b).

iv) The calendar of events for conducting the election are already issued and at this stage, the election process cannot be stalled by revising the list.

v) If election is vitiated for inclusion of ineligible voters, the petitioner can challenge the same under Section 20 and file an appeal to the District

Judge under Section 26 which are the alternate remedies.

In support of his contentions Shri Anant Hegde, the learned counsel relies upon the following judgments :

(a) K.K.Shrivastava Etc., v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain and others AIR 1977 SC 1703.

(b) Bar Council of Delhi and Others v. Surjeet Singh and Others (1980) 4 SCC 211.

(c) Umesh Shivappa Ambi and others v. Angadi Shekara Basappa and others AIR 1999 SC 1566.

There is no dispute that against the impugned order statutory appeal is provided before the Director of Agricultural Marketing.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has submitted a representation to the Appellate Authority also as per Annexure-C on

03.01.2017. Having regard to these facts, the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy.

Shri.Anant Hegde, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 10 contends that Annexure-C, representation is not in proper and

prescribed format and not in time. Annexure-C shows that the representation was given as long back as on 03.01.2017 with the same allegations.

Therefore this Court is not able to persuade itself to accept such technical objections. Therefore respondent No.2 is directed to treat Annexure-C

as appeal under Rule 5(16) of the APMC Rules.

At this stage, Shri.A.P.Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election is already scheduled to be held on 21.01.2018

and contends that the election to the relevant constituency shall be deferred till 2nd respondent decides the appeal. Shri.Anant Hegde, the learned

counsel contends that in view of the judgments relied upon by him once election process has commenced, it cannot be stalled.

In the judgments relied upon, the elections were already conducted and the said the matters arose out of election petitions. In this case, the

objections are filed much before the issuance of the calendar of events. This Court does not find it just and proper to drive the parties to such long

course of litigation when that can be avoided by considering the objections Annexure-C at initial stage only. If Annexure-C is considered and then

election is conducted, no injustice will be caused to either of the parties.

Therefore the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Annexure-C as an appeal under Rule 5(16) of APMC Rules. The parties shall appear

before the Appellate Authority on 18.01.2018 at 11.00 a.m. without expecting any further notice from the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent

shall hear the parties and dispose of the petition Annexure-C as expeditiously as possible. Rest of the contentions of the parties are left open.