Skip to content


Chief Marketing Officer Vs. Sudhakar Krishnappa Kamath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal Nos. 425 of 1982 etc.
Judge
Reported inAIR1986Kant169
ActsKarnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 -Sections 61 and 154; Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1980; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226
AppellantChief Marketing Officer
RespondentSudhakar Krishnappa Kamath
Appellant AdvocateR.H. Chandanagoudar, Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Sundaraswamy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.P.M.C., ;R.C. Goulay, ;V.S. Gunjal, ;S. Pramila, ;K.S. Desai, ;B.G. Sridharan and ;S.I.G. Sundaraswamy, Advs.
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [mohan shantanagoudar, j] compensation pecuniary advantage question whether the amount received under mediclaim policy is deductable out of total compensation? held, the insurance money is by virtue of a contractual relationship between the deceased/injured and the insurance company and is payable to the legal heirs of the deceased/injured in terms of the contract. such money cannot be said to have been received by the heirs/injured only on account of the accidental death of the deceased/accidental injuries of the claimant, but truly it is a fruit of the premium paid by the deceased during his life time/injured. the deceased/injured would have bought the insurance policy as an act of his prudence to confer benefit either to.....mahendra, j. 1. these appeals arise out of writ petitions filed by employees of agricultural produce market committees.2. in v. l bhat, giri, g. k. bhadri and s. p. pawar v. the secretary, agricultural produce market committee, haliyal, the agricultural produce market committee, haliyal and the chief marketing officer, bangalore, w. p. nos. 1,1368,11368a, 11368b and 11368c of 1979, the agricultural produce market committee, hereinafter referred to as the 'market committee' passed resolutions proposing to revise the pay scales of the petitioners. the salary and allowances payable to the petitioners were included in the budget for that year and the proposed budget was also approved by the chief marketing officer hereinafter referred to as the 'c.m.o.' the market committee decided to give.....
Judgment:

Mahendra, J.

1. These appeals arise out of Writ Petitions filed by Employees Of Agricultural Produce Market Committees.

2. In V. L Bhat, Giri, G. K. Bhadri and S. P. Pawar v. the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Haliyal, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Haliyal and the Chief Marketing Officer, Bangalore, W. P. Nos. 1,1368,11368A, 11368B and 11368C of 1979, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Committee' passed resolutions proposing to revise the pay scales of the petitioners. The salary and allowances payable to the petitioners were included in the Budget for that year and the proposed Budget was also approved by the Chief Marketing Officer hereinafter referred to as the 'C.M.O.' The Market Committee decided to give effect to its resolutions revising the pay scales without waiting for the approval of the C.M.C. The Secretary of the Market Committee informed the petitioners by its letter Ext. D. that the resolutions of the Market Committee having not received the approval of the C.M.O., the revised pay could not be given to them. The petitioners prayed for quashing this letter and for a direction to the Market Committee to implement the resolution and give them the benefit of the revised pay scales. Rama Jois, J. held that the C. M. O., must be regarded as having accorded approval to the revision of pay scales to the petitioners as he had accorded approval to the Budget, proposals wherein a provision had been made for the revised pay scales and issued a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Market Committee to give effect to the revised pay scales and give all consequential benefits to the petitioners.

3. In R Veerappa v. Chief Marketing Officer and Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Harihar - W. P. No. 13183 of 1979 and other cases the Petitioners are the employees of the Agricultural Market Committees at Harihar and other places. Each of the Market Committees passed resolutions to revise the pay scales of its employees and forwarded the resolutions for approval to the C.M.O., who refused to accord the approval in some cases and deferred giving approval in other cases to the resolutions of the Market Committees. The petitioners prayed for quashing of the orders of the C.M.O. and for directions to the Market Committees to give them the benefit of the revised pay scales. Puttaswamy, J. held that the orders of the C.M.O. are unauthorised, quashed his orders and issued a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the respective Market Committees in each of these cases to implement the resolutions and give the revised pay scales to the Petitioners and also to make payments to which they are entitled to. Aggrieved by the orders in all these Writ Petitions the C.M.O., as also the Market Committees have filed appeals separately.

4. The parties are referred to in this order with reference to the position they occupied as petitioners and respondent in the Writ Petitions.

5. A Market Committee it was argued on behalf of the petitioners has absolute power to appoint its officers and servants and pay salary and allowances to them under the unamended S. 61 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, and therefore the approval of the C.M.O., for appointment or for paying salary to such officers and staff is not necessary. It was argued on behalf of the Respondents that such a power is not absolute but is subject to the limitations prescribed in the Rules and as the Rules in force provide that the approval of the C.M.O. is necessary, unless the C.M.O., accords his approval a Market Committee has no competence to appoint its officers and staff and pay salary and allowances to them.

6. The Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' came into force with effect from 1st May 1968. A Market Committee is established for each market area under S. 9 of the Act, A Market Committee gets the power to employ such officers and servants as may be necessary under S. 61 of the Act which reads:

'Section 61. Power of Market Committee to employ other staff: -

1) Subject to such conditions as may be provided in the rules, the market committee may employ such officers and servants other than those specified under S. 58 ass may be necessary for the management and regulation of the market and for transacting the affairs of the market committee and may pay such, officers and servants such salaries as the market committee may determine.

(2) The market committee may also in the case of any of its officers and servants appointed under sub-sec. (1) provide for them such leave allowances pension and gratuities as may be provided in the bye-laws and may contribute to any provident fund which may he established for the benefit of such officers and servants.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-ss. (1) and (2), the market committee may create temporary posts for a period not exceeding four months and make appointments thereto subject to the condition that the maximum monthly pay of such posts shall not exceed one hundred and twenty rupees.

7. A Market Committee has therefore the power or competence to employ such officers and servants other than those specified in S. 58, as may be necessary for the management and regulation of the market and for transacting the affairs of the Market Committee and pay such officers and servant's salaries as the Market Committee may determine. This power is subject to such conditions as may be provided in the Rules made under the Act. A Market Committee has the power to provide to the officers and staff such leave, allowances, pension and gratuities as may be provided in the Bye-laws made with the previous sanction of the C.M.O. A Market Committee has the power to create posts the monthly salary of which does not exceed one hundred and twenty rupees for a period not exceeding four months and to make appointments to such posts.

8. A Market Committee, under sub-sec. (3) of S. 61 of the Act may on its own and without reference to any other authority or Rule or Bye-law, create only for a period not exceeding four months posts carrying salary not exceeding Rs. 120/ - and appoint to such posts. In the very nature of things these are temporary posts obviously created for short periods to meet the unexpected or urgent requirements of a market committee. The appointments to such posts Lire not -subject to the conditions as may be provided in the rules'. A Market Committee has therefore absolute powers to appoint to such posts tinder sub-sec. (3) of S. 61 of the Act. The appointment to the other posts and payment of salary to the persons appointed are made 'subject to any conditions as may be provided under the rules' and the grant of leave, payment of allowances, pension, gratuity etc., are regulated by the Bye-laws.

9. The Legislature has used the words -subject to any conditions as may be provided in the rules-while conferring power to appoint, on a Market Committee under sub-see. (1) and not while conferring power to appoint on a Market Committee under sub-sec. (3) of S. 61 of the Act. If as argued on behalf of the petitioners the Legislature has conferred absolute power to appoint both under sub-sees. (1) and (3) and S. 61 of the Act, the Legislature would not have used the words 'subject to any conditions as may be provided in the rules' in sub-sec. (1) of S. 61 of the Act.

10. In a statutory enactment every word used must receive its full and proper connotation in the construction. An Act or part of the Act cannot be ignored or treated as being meaningless. A Court always presumes that the Legislature has used every word for a purpose and the intention of the Legislature is that every part of a statute should have effect and therefore effect must be, given to all the words used in it statutory provision. A Court can only reject words as superfluous if by giving a meaning to every word the intention of Legislature is defeated.

11. These words 'subject to such conditions as may be provided in the rules' in sub-sec. (1) of S. 61 of the Act are clear and explicit and we have therefore to give effect to these words, as they speak the intention of the Legislature not to confer on a Market Committee absolute power to employ its officers and servants including the fixation of pay scales to persons so appointed. The power conferred on it Market Committee under sub sec. (1) of S. 61 of the Act, is therefore not absolute but is subject to the limitations and restrictions provided in the Rules framed under the Act. The real nature and scope of the power conferred on it Market Committee can Only be ascertained by a combined reading of or reading together S. 61 of the Act and the Rules framed in conformity with S. 61. If they tire so read what emerges is that it Market Committee is not conferred with absolute power to employ its officers and servants or and fix pay scales to persons so appointed but the power conferred is regulated. Controlled or is made subject to the limitations or restrictions as are provided by the Rules matte in conformity with S. 61 of the Act. If the Legislature had not used the words 'subject to the conditions as may be provided in the rules', the learned Counsel for the petitioners would have been right in contending that a Market Committee is conferred with absolute power to employ it's officers and servants and give them pay scales they thought fit. To understand or to interpret sub-sec. (1) of S. 61 of the Act, in the way the learned Counsel wants us to it would become necessary to amend S. 61(1) of the Act and delete the words -subject to the conditions as may be provided in the rules' We have to understand or interpret the provisions of S. 61(1) of ' the Act as enacted and not by ignoring certain words used therein.

12. Rules framed, under the Act, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners, can only provide for the eligibility for appointment and if a rule framed restricts or overrides the power of a Market Committee to employ its officers and servants, the said rule would be ultra vires. In support of this submission reliance was placed on. Bishweswar Dayal Sinha v. Bihar University, : [1964]7SCR879 , Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, : [1966]2SCR172 . State of Mysore v. Mallik Hashim and Company. AIR 1973 SC 1449.

13. A rule can only be made for carrying out the purpose of the Act. A rule framed cannot override the statutory power conferred on an authority under the Act and confer the said power on another authority. A rule, which is inconsistent with any provision of the Act, to, the extent it is inconsistent must yield to the provision of the Act. The decisions of the Supreme Court relied on behalf of the petitioner's supports this contention. It is therefore undisputable that if a rule framed under the Act limits, abridges, overrides or is inconsistent with the powers of a Market Committee conferred under S. 61 of the Act, such a rule would be ultra, vires and invalid and has to yield to the provisions of S. 61 of the Act. But we have already held that the power conferred on a Market Committee under S. 61(1) of the Act, is not absolute but is limited and restricted by a Rule and therefore a rule restricting or limiting the power of a Market Committee is a rule framed. In conformity with S. 61 of the Act and is one framed by the, rule making authority for carrying out the purpose of the Act. It cannot be said that such a rule is inconsistent with or affects or overrides or abridges the power conferred on a Market Committee under S. 61 of the Act.

14. It is not disputed that no rules on this subject have been framed under S. 61 of the Act after it came into force. It was therefore argued on behalf of the petitioners that the exercise of the power conferred under sub-sec. (1) of S. 61 of the Act being subject to the conditions provided in the rules, no rule in conformity with S. 61 of the Act having been made, the exercise of the power conferred on a Market Committee under sub-sec. (1) of S. 61 of the Act, is not in any way abridged. It was therefore argued that the power conferred on a Market Committee to employ its officers and servants including fixation of pay scales to them is not, subject to any approval of the C.M.O. and therefore the impugned orders of the C.M.O. are without competence. In answer it was argued on behalf of the Respondents that the rules framed under the various Acts in force in each of the integrating areas in the State of Karnataka which were repealed by the Act provided for the approval of the C.M.O., for making appointments and for fixing pay scales, by the Market Committees, and the continue to remain in force even after those Acts came to be repealed by S. 154 of the Act. It was therefore urged that the approval of the C. M. O. is necessary for making appointments of officers and servants and for giving revised pay scales to such officers and servants by the Market Committee.

15. In the new State of Karnataka which came into being, on 1-11-1956, the Madras Commercial Crops Market Act, 1933 (Madras Act XX of 1933) was in force in Bellary District, and the Madras Area: the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 (Bombay Act XXII Of 1939) hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Act', was in force in the Bombay Area; the Hyderabad Agricultural Market Act, 1339F (Hyderabad Act 11 of 1939 Fasli), hereinafter referred to as the 'Hyderabad Act' was in force in the Hyderabad Area; the Mysore Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 (Mysore Act XVI of 1939) hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Act' , was in force in the Mysore Area and the Coorg Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 Coorg Act VII of 1956), was in force in the Coorg District. On the coming into force the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 with effect from 1st May, 1968 which extends to the whole of the State of Karnataka, the several Acts as in force in the different integrating areas of the State of Karnataka came to be repealed by S. 154 of the Act which reads:

'S. 154 Repeal and savings: -

1. The Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933 (Madras Act XX of 1933), as in force in Bellary District, the Madras Commercial Crops Market Act, 1933 (Madras Act XX 1933), as in force in the Madras Area, the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 (Bombay Act XXII of 1939), as; in force in the Bombay Area, the Hyderabad Agricultural Act, 1339F (Hyderabad Act II of 1339 Fasli), as in force in the Hyderabad Area, the Mysore Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939 (Mysore Act XVI of 1939), as in force in the Mysore Area and the Coorg Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1956 (Coorg Act VII of 1956), as in force in the Coorg District are hereby repealed:

Provided that: -

(a) the repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed, and anything done or action taken (including any appointment, delegation or declaration made, notification, order, rule, direction or notice issued, bye-law framed, market areas, markets, sub-markets and yards declared, established or notified, licences granted, fees levied and collected, instruments executed, any fund established or constituted) by or under the provisions of any such enactment shall, in so far as, it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act, and shall continue in force unless and until superseded by anything, done or any action taken under this Act:

(b), (c), (d) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx'

16. The repeal of the Acts in force in the several integrating areas does not affect the previous operation of the enactments so repealed and anything done or action taken (including any appointment, delegation or declaration made, notification, order, rule, direction or notice issue bye-law framed, market areas, markets, sub-markets and yards declared, established or notified, licences granted, fees levied and collected, instruments executed, any fund established or constitute by, or under the provisions of any such enactment shall in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are deemed to have' been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and continue in force unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act. Rules framed under the repealed enactments touching the power of the Market Committee in so far as the said rules are not inconsistent with S. 61 of the Act are therefore deemed to have been framed in conformity with S. 61 of the Act and continue in force until superseded by rules framed under this Act as no rules are framed in this behalf under the provisions of the Act. .

17. We are in these cases concerned with the Market committees in Bombay Area, Hyderabad Area and Mysore Area of the State of Karnataka. The Bombay Act was in force in the Bombay Area, the Hyderabad Act was in force in the Hyderabad Area and the Mysore Act was in force in the Mysore Area.

18. A Market Committee in the Bombay Area gets the power to appoint its officers and servants under S. 9 of the Bombay Act which reads:

'9. Appointment and salaries of servants of the Market Committee:

(1) The Market Committee may employ such officers and servants as may be necessary for the management of the market and may pay such officers and servants such salaries as the market committee thinks fit. The Market Committee shall, in the case of any officer or servant of Government whom it employs, pay such pension contribution, gratuity or leave allowance as may be required by the conditions of his service under the Government for the time being in force.

(2) The Market Committee may also, in the case of any of its officers and servants, provide for the payment to them of such 'leave allowances, pensions or gratuities as it deems proper, and may contribute to any provident fund which may be established for the benefit of such, officers and servants.

(3) The powers conferred by this section on the Market Committee shall be exercised subject to any rules which may be made in this behalf by the State Government.'

Rule 38 framed under the Bombay Act reads: -

'Rule .38 - Servants of the Market Committee:

(1) The Market Committee shall appoint a secretary and may employ such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient execution of its duties.

(2) Such officers and servants shall be divided into two classes:

(i) superior officers and servants, and (ii) inferior servants. Superior officers and servants shall be the secretary clerks and such officers and servants as the Director may determine. Inferior servants shall be peons, watchmen and other menial servants.

(3) The terms and conditions of service of the superior officers and servants shall be such as are approved by the Director and those of the inferior servants shall be such as the market committee itself may decide.

(4) The appointments of superior officers and servants shall be made by the market committee subject to the approval of the Director. Any punishment, revision in pay or terms of service or dismissal of the superior officers and servants shall also be subject to the Director. All inferior servants shall be under the full control of the market committee, but the committee shall make an immediate report to the Director in regard to their appointments, pay, punishment, dismissal and other matters relating to such servants.

(5) The Director may by order in writing delegate any of his powers and duties under this rule to the Chief Marketing Officer or District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.'

19. The validity of sub-rule (4) of R. 38 framed under the Bombay Act requiring the approval of the Director for the appointments by a Market Committee under S. 9 of the Bombay Act was questioned before this Court in Gurubasappa Channappa Makanur v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ranebennur, (1967) 1 Mys LJ 651.In that case the petitioner questioned the validity of sub-rule (4) of R. 38 on the ground that S. 9(l) empowers the Market Committee to employ such officers and servants as may be necessary and to pay such officers and servants such salaries as the Market Committee thinks fit and this absolute power is conferred by the Legislature on the Market Committee and the :Rule making Authority had no competence to frame sub-rule (4) of R. 38 to curtail the power of the Market Committee to appoint its officers and servants. A Division Bench of this/Court held that a combined reading of su6.s& (1) and (3) of S. 9 makes it clear that the conferment of the power on the Market Committee is not absolute and has to be exercised subject to the rules as may be made in this behalf and sub-rule (4) of R. 38 is clearly within the competence of the, State Government and is in conformity with the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of S. 9 of the Bombay Act and therefore not ultra vires.

20. A Market Committee in the Mysore Area gets the power to appoint its officers and servants under S. 9 of the Mysore Act, which reads:

'9 Appointments and salaries of the market committee: -

(1) Subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, the market committee may employ such officers and servants as may be necessary for the management of the market and may pay such officers and servants such salaries as the committee thinks fit and shall have power to control and punish them. The Committee may, in the case of any officer or servant of the Government which it employs, pay such pension, contribution, gratuity or leave allowance as may be required by the regulations made by Government in this behalf and for the time being in force.

(2) The Committee may also, in the case of any of its officers and servants, provide for the payment to them of such leave allowances, pensions or gratuities as it deemed proper; and may contribute to any provident fund which may be established for the benefit of such officers and servants.

(3) The powers conferred by this section on the market committee shall be exercised, subject to any rules which may be made in this behalf by the Government.

Rule 32 framed under the Mysore Act reads:

'32 Employment of servants:-

(a) The committee may employ a market supervisor and such servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient execution of its duties, to such number, and on such scale 'of pay as may be approved by the Chief Marketing Officer and shall have power to control and punish them.''

A Market Committee is given the power to employ such officers and servants as may be necessary and pay such officers and servants such salaries as the Committee thinks fit and this power is subject to the rules made in this behalf. The conferment of power on the Market Committee is therefore not absolute and has to be exercised subject to the rules framed under the Act and the rules framed in this behalf provide that the powers conferred on the Market Committee under S. 9 of the Act, shall be exercised subject to the approval of the C.M.O. This Rule is in conformity with the provisions of S. 9 of the Act and is therefore not ultra vires.

21. A Market Committee in the Hyderabad Area gets the power under S. 8, of the Hyderabad Act which reads:

'8 Appointment of servants of Market Committee and their salaries.

(1) The Market Committee may employ such officers and servants as it may think necessary for the management of the Market and may pay such salaries to them as it may think proper. If the Market Committee employ an officer or servant who is in the service of the Government it may pay contribution in respect of pension, gratuity or leave allowance in accordance with the rules made by the Government which may be for the time being in force.

(2) The Market Committee may also provide for leave allowances, pension or gratuity to its officers and servants' and may contribute to any provident fund which may be established for the benefit of such officers and servants.

(3) The powers conferred by this section upon the Market Committee shall be exercised subject to the rules made in this behalf by the Government:

Rule 45 framed under the Hyderabad Act reads:

'45 Miscellaneous powers subject to control: - The Market Committee shall exercise all their powers subject to the general control of the Secretary to Government, Marketing Department and in particular no bye-law or agreement shall be prescribed, no fresh fee levied, no weights or scales approved, no conditions of any agreement or license added to or altered no Market Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent employed or new scales or pay fixed and no allowances deductions or contributions on, account of charity approved, without his previous sanction.'

A Market Committee is therefore given the power to employ such officers and servants as it may think necessary and pay such salaries to them as it may think proper and this power to employ its officers and servants and pay them salaries can be exercised subject to the rules made in this behalf. The conferment of this power is therefore not absolute but has to be exercised subject to the, rules framed under the Act and R. 45 made in this behalf provides that a Market Committee shaft exercise all its powers under S. 8 of the Act subject to the general control of the Secretary to Government, Marketing Department and no Market Superintendent, or Assistant Superintendent employed or new scales of pay fixed without his previous sanction. This Rule is in conferment with the mandate of S. 8 of the Act and is therefore not ultra vires.

22. It is therefore seen that in all these enactments repealed a Market Committee was given the power to employ its officers and servants and fix their pay scales etc. subject to the rules made under the Act and the Rule making Authority had framed rules in conformity with the mandate of the relevant provisions of the respective enactments providing for the exercise of this power by a Market Committee with the approval of an authority specified in the rules. These Rules framed under the repealed enactments are not inconsistent with S. 61 of the Act which also confers on the Market Committee the power to employ its officers and servants and fix the pay scales of persons so appointed subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in the rules. No rules in this behalf having been framed under the Act, the rules framed under the repealed enactments which are not inconsistent with S. 61 of the Act are deemed to have-been made under the Act and continue in force unless and until rules in this behalf are framed under the Act, under S. 1 i4 of the Act.

23. The resulting position therefore is that a Market Committee either in the Bombay Area, Hyderabad Area or Mysore Area had no absolute power under S. 61 of the Act to employ its officers and servants and to pay salary or to revise the pay scale, etc., and this power can only be exercised with the approval of the C.M.O. This position is now made more explicit by the Legislature amending S. 61 by Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1980 which now reads:

'S. 61. - Power of Market Committee to employ other staff.-- (1) Subject to such conditions as may be provided in the rules land with the previous approval of the Chief Marketing Officer, the market committee may appoint by promotion or otherwise such officers and servants other than those specified under Ss. 58 and 59' as may be necessary for the management it and regulation of the market and for transacting the affairs of the market committee and may subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and with the previous approval of the Chief Marketing Officer pay such officers and servants such salaries as the market committee may determine.

(2) and (3) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx'

The power of the Market Committee under S, 61 can now be exercised only with the previous approval of the C.M.O.

24. We are supported in this view by the decision in Mallipapanna v. Chief. Marketing Officer, W. A. No. 852 of 1981, Dated 10-9-1982 where a Division Bench of this Court has also taken the view that the rules framed under the Act in force in the Mysore Area continue in operation and the rules so continued in operation require the approval of the C.M.O. for the appointment of officers and servants by a Market Committee in the Mysore Area. Mallipapanna was appointed temporarily as a Market Supervisor by the Market Committee, Sira, in the Mysore Area, subject to the approval of the C.M.O. The Market Committee's budget for that year which also provided funds for meeting his salary and allowances had been approved by the C.M.O. The C.M.O. not having approved this appointment his set-vices were terminated by the Market Committee. He challenged the termination of his service. It was argued on his behalf that the rules framed under the Act did not specifically provide for any approval by the C. M. O. and the Market Committee's budget for the relevant year had provided for paying the salary and allowances of the petitioner', and the C.M.O. having approved the budget it must be held that the C.NLO., had also approved the appointment of the petitioner. This Court rejected these contentions and accepted the contentions urged on behalf of the C.M.O., that the rules made under the earlier enactments which were substituted, by the Act specifically provided that such appointments should be approved by the C.M.O., and these rules have continued to be in operation as no corresponding rules have yet been made under the Act. The C.M.O., not having given his approval for the petitioner's appointment this Court declined to grant him any relief. In V. L. Bhat v. The Secretary, A.P. M.C., Haliyal, W. P. Nos. 11368 of 1979, etc dt. 12-2-1982 the learned single Judge has taken the view that the C.M.O. must be regarded as having accorded approved to the revision of pay scales as he had already accorded approval to the Budget proposals wherein a provision has been made for payment of salary etc., in the revised pay scales. In Mallipapanna's case the appointment of the petitioner by the Market Committee bad not been approved by the C.M.O. The Market Committee's Budget for the year in which the petitioner was appointed had provided funds for meeting, his salary and allowances and the C.M.O. had accorded his approval to the Budget. A contention was therefore raised that the appointment of the petitioner had been approved by the C.M.O, This Court did not accept this contention and held that the C.M.0s approval is necessary for the appointment of the petitioner and the C.M.O., not having approved the appointment, the petitioner could not have a legitimate grievance regarding the termination of his service. This decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mallipapanna's case taking a contrary view was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge.

25. The power conferred on a Market Committee to employ its officers and staff and to pay or revise their pay and allowances has to be exercised in the way prescribed by the statute conferring such a power, Non-compliance with this requirement results in the appointment made, pay or revised pay scales granted (being) unauthorised. An Annual Budget estimate of income and expenditure of a Market Committee is prepared and forwarded to the C.M.O., for approval. One of the statements accompanying the Budget is a statement showing the details of scales of pay and salary of the establishment of the Committee provided for in the Budget which is a routine expenditure. The C.M.O., by approving the Budget only accords sanction to the estimated income and expenditure. By according approval to the Budget proposals the C.M.O., does not approve the appointment of each of the officers and servants of the Market Committee or the salary payable to each one of them. The C.M.O has to accord his approval to the appointment of the'offic6rs and staff of the Market Committee as also the salary payable to each of them. Admittedly, the C. M. O., has not accorded his approval to the resolutions of the Market Committee proposing revision of pay scales to the Petitioners. The Market Committee cannot give the revised pay scales to the petitioner without the approval of the C.M.O. There is therefore no statutory duty on a Market Committee to pay the salary in the revised pay scales without the approval of the C.M.O. merely because the Budget approved makes a provision in this behalf. A Writ of Mandamus cannot therefore be issued to them to give effect to or implement the resolution of the Market Committee proposing to revise the pay scales of the Petitioners. The decision in V. L. Bhat's case does not lay down the law correctly and we therefore set aside the same.

26. In all the other cases the learned single Judge has followed K. S. Bhandkar v. Chief Marketing Officer, (1981) 2 Kant U S93 and the decision of the Division Bench on appeal in the Chief Marketing Officer v. K. S. Banakar, W.A. No.616 of 1981, D/- 11-11-1981. In Banakar's case the facts are these:

The Market Committee, Ranebennur, passed a resolution on 3-6-1977 to revise the pay scales of the Petitioners who were working as Market Supervisors and forwarded its resolution to the C.M.O., for approval. The C.M.O., refused to accord his approval. It was argued on behalf of the Petitioners that the Market Committee has the competence to revise the pay scales of its employees and the C.M.O. has no competence to interfere with the resolution of the Market Committee. It was also argued that the refusal of the C.M.O. to accord sanction was arbitrary. The learned single Judge held that 'the Act and the rules nowhere provide for obtaining the prior approval of the C.M.O. before revising the pay scales of the servants of the Market Committee and make payments to them. The Market, Committee the employer has the competence to decide the same and the decision is not made subject to any confirmation or prior approval by the C. M. O. or any other authority functioning under the Act'. The learned single Judge also held that there was no justification for the C.M.O. to withhold approval to the resolutions proposing pay revision. He, therefore, quashed the impugned orders of the C.M.O. and issued a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Market Committee to implement its resolution to revise the pay scales of the Petitioners. On appeal by the C. M.O. a Division Bench of this Court affirmed the finding that the decision of the C.M.O., was arbitrary and dismissed the appeal. The Court observed thus: 'For the purpose of these appeals, it is sufficient to consider one ground on which the learned single Judge quashed the order of the Chief Marketing Officer. The learned single Judge has pointed out that the Chief Marketing Officer had granted approval for similar resolutions passed by other Market Committees. No reasons had been assigned by the Chief Marketing Officer for not granting his approval for similar revision of pay-scales to the employees of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ranebennur. In the absence of any such reasons, the decision of the Chief Marketing Officer refusing to grant such approval was arbitrary. The learned single Judge was justified in quashing such decision.'

The Division Bench has affirmed the view taken by the learned single Judge only on the ground that the decision of the C.M.O. was arbitrary and was not a speaking order. It cannot therefore be said that the Division Bench has affirmed the view of the learned single Judge that it was not necessary for the 'Market Committee to obtain the approval of the C.M.O., to revise the pay scales and make payments in terms of, the revised pay scales. The decision in Banakar's case as affirmed by the Division Bench is therefore no authority to the proposition that the approval of the C.M.O., is not necessary -for revising the pay scales of the employees by a Market Committee. The decision in K. S. Banak4r v. Chief Marketing Officer, (1981 (2) Kant LJ 593) does not lay down the law correctly and we -therefore overrule the same.

27. We will now consider whether the decision of the C.M.O., in each of these cases either refusing to accord approval or deferring to accord his approval is in any Way vitiated. We have perused the orders of the C.M.O., in each of these cases. The C.M.O. has accorded his approval to the resolutions of some Market Committees proposing to revise the pay scales is not in dispute. The impugned orders of the C.M.O., do not give any reasons as to why approval is not accorded. It was however argued on behalf of the C.M.O. that circulars had been issued to the Market Committees not to make any changes in the staff pattern or in the salary payable to them etc., in view of the proposed absorption of the employees of the Market Committees in Government Service and the C.M.O., has in some cases refused to accord approval as there was undue haste to upgrade posts, to give promotions out of turn and to grant premature increments etc. It was also argued that the C.M.O. has after taking into consideration the financial implications of implementing the resolutions, financial position of the Market Committees and the need to (prevent whimsical changes in the staff pattern and grades and promotions as also all other relevant facts and circumstances has passed the impugned orders. We are not unmindful of the fact that these are relevant facts an circumstances to be taken into consideration by the C.M.O. mi deciding whether or riot he should accord approval. But the orders of the C.M.O. and the records do not show that any one or other of these facts or circumstances were taken into consideration by him in arriving at the decision. We are satisfied that impugned orders suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and are vitiated. The impugned orders in each of these cases are therefore liable to be quashed not because the C.M.O. had no competence to make these orders but because these orders suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and we accordingly affirm the quashing of these orders by the learned single Judge.

28. The resolution of a Market Committee to become effective hag to be approved by the C.M.O. and the Market Committee -cannot give effect to its resolution unless it is approved by the C.M.O., The C.M.O., is under a statutory obligation to consider the resolutions and decide whether or not to accord his approval. If he accords his approval it is then for the Market Committee to decide whether and when to give effect to the resolution approved by the C.M.O. Even after the C.M.O. accords approval the Market Committee in its discretion may not give effect to its resolutions. In these circumstances, no Writ of Mandamus can be issued to a Market Committee to implement its resolution proposing to revise the pay scales but the C.M.O. can be compelled to perform his statutory duty and decide whether or not he should accord approval to the resolutions of Market Committees.

29. In the light of the above discussions, W these appeals are allowed in part, (ii) a Writ in the nature of Mandamus issued in each of these cases directing the implementation of the resolution of the Market Committee is set aside and (iii) a Writ in the nature of Mandamus shall be issued in each of these cases directing the C.M.O. to consider the resolutions sent by the Market Committees for his approval and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and (iv) We direct the Parties to bear their own costs.

30. Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //