Town Mun. Council, Naregal vs State of Karnataka and Others

This is a petition filed by the Town Municipal Council, Naregal of Dharwad District by its Chief Officer. It is alleged that by an order dated 6th June 1981 the Agricuitural Produce Market Committee (2nd respondent herein) appointed the Town Municipal Council (Petitioner) to collect the market fee charged by the 2nd respondent market committee under S. 65 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). But, by a letter dated 24th June 1981 the Market Committee has informed that in view of the provisions contained in S. 97 of the Act, if is not possible to appoint the Town Municipal Council as an agent for the purpose of collecting the market fee under the Act.

Aggrieved by the same, the Town Municipal Council has challenged the vires of S. 97 of the Act as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution as Panchayats alone have been permitted to be appointed as agents under S. 97, while Town Municipal Council and other local authorities defined under S. 2 of the Act have been excluded. It is further contended that the Town Municipal Council was before the establishment of the Market Committee, itself conducting the fair and shandies within its Municipal limits from which it was deriving income and that power to hold fairs and shandies now having been transferred exclusively to the control and management of the Committee constituted under the APMC Act the discrimination is aggravated as there is total loss of income which other wise would have accrued to the Municipal Council by virtue of S. 97 (3) of the Act.

In my opinion, the challenge made is firvolous and not sustainable. No doubt the Act under S. 2 defines ''local authority'' to include the Town Municipal Council. But that definition is limited for the purpose of representation on the market committee and no more. Therefore, the definition in the Act of ''local authorities'' itself does not confer any right on the Town Municipal Council to be appointed as agent of the market committee.

It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under S. 8 of the Act prohibition imposed on the local authorities as a class not to do something which the market committee constituted under that Act is required to do affects the income of the petitioners.

I do not know how that provision also in any way directly or indirectly confers a right to be appointed as agent in terms of S. 97 of the Act. If the Legislature in its wisdom chooses one of the several local authorities. in the State to be appointed as an agent of the market committee for the purpose of collecting the market fee in the respective areas of the Panchayats, it cannot be said that the other local authorities that may be in existence in the market area under the Act are ipso facto discriminated. Apparently the intention of the Legislature under the APMC Act is to reduce the burden of collecting the market fee from Panchayat areas which necessarily constitute predominantly agricultural areas in any given area of the State and also to provide them with some funds. The other local authorities including the Town Municipal Councils have lost their chances of being appointed as agents because they have not been mentioned therein, as argued by the learned counsel, implies that they had a right to be appointed. But the learned counsel has not furnished any material particulars on the basis of which the legal right is claimed. All that is said by the learned counsel is that there has been loss of revenue on account of the power conferred on the market committees in respect of holding fairs and shandies etc., and therefore the Town Municipal Councils are entitled to a better deal than panchayats so far as S. 97 is concerned.

I am unable to see it as a legal argument. Under S. 94 of the Town Municipalities Act, every municipal council is authorised to levy tax for purposes of obtaining revenue for itself. The petitioner Town Municipal Council also has the same power to improve its resources by resorting to such taxing measures as the law permits. It is too much to expect that mere loss on account of loss of revenue automatically entitles a local authority like the petitioner to be included along with all the panchayats to be appointed as an agent. Law of agency does not recognise any such right.

In this view of the matter, as already noticed, the challenge to constitutional validity of S. 97 of the Act is without any merit and the petition is dismissed without rule being issued.