ORDER : The petitioner herein is claiming himself to be an authorized representative to participate in the election to be held for Sakaleshpur APMC. According to him the election notice bearing No. Chunavane (2)/APMC/69/2016-17, dated 16.12.2016, vide Annexure-A was issued calling upon the nomination for election to Sakaleshpur APMC which is at Item No.4 to the said notice, which deals with election to the post of Members of Sakaleshpur APMC. In the said Item No. 4 there is a reference to nomination under different 14 categories. This writ petition pertains to Category-13 which is Agricultural Produce Marketing Co-operative Society from whom one person is to be elected. 2. In these proceedings, the grievance of the petitioner is that the election to Sakaleshpur APMC Cooperative Society was scheduled to be conducted on 12.1.2017. The name of the petitioner was agreed by majority of members of 6th respondent-society which is at Sl.No.13 to Item No. 14 of the notice dated 16.12.1016. The recommendation of Ravikumar H.P., the petitioner herein, as the candidate for the society is at Annexure-B. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is selected by majority of members of the society by passing a resolution as a candidate, respondent No.8 has filed nomination independently which is contrary to Rule 41(1A) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Rules, 1968 (‘Rules’ for short). 3. A reading of the said Rule does not support the same inasmuch as the there is no reference to the candidate being recommended based on the resolution to be passed. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner is opposed by the learned Additional Government Advocate on the premise that the resolution which is passed does not give any force in the eye of law to recognize a person said to be nominated in the aforesaid manner as the only person as a candidate. He would rely upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court where it deals with a batch of writ petitions, in the case of Service Co-operative Society Ltd., Chalkapur Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar & others, reported in ILR 1975 KARNATAKA 241, wherein at paragraph 27 it is held as under:- “27. Writ Petition No. 3426 of 1975: Market Committee, Chitradurga. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar & others, reported in ILR 1975 KARNATAKA 241, wherein at paragraph 27 it is held as under:- “27. Writ Petition No. 3426 of 1975: Market Committee, Chitradurga. In this case the question is whether respondent-4 has been properly elected as a member of the market committee under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 11. The nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the nomination was not supported by the resolution of the managing committee of the Taluk Marketing Society. The Rules do not require that a candidate should be sponsored by the Taluk Marketing Society as held by me in Writ Petition No.2947 of 1975 decided on 21st July 1975. The order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is set aside. Consequently the declaration that respondent-4 as duly elected, is set aside. The Returning Officer shall scrutinize the nomination paper filed by the petitioner as required by the Rules on a date to be fixed by him and thereafter he shall hold the election in accordance with law, if he considers that the petitioner does not suffer from any disqualifications. It is open to all concerned to raise objections to the nomination paper of the petitioner before the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer shall hold the election in accordance with law after giving decision of the objections raised to the nomination paper of the petitioner.” 4. In the aforesaid decision, in WP.No.3426/1975 under similar circumstances where the nomination was rejected on the premise that the same was not supported by the resolution of the society, the same is struck down on the ground that there is no requirement either under the Act or Rules to support the name of a candidate by passing a resolution in the society. Even otherwise, when Form No.15 under Rule 8(i) of the Rules is looked into, there is no requirement of securing and producing the resolution passed by the society while tendering the nomination. 5. Even otherwise, when Form No.15 under Rule 8(i) of the Rules is looked into, there is no requirement of securing and producing the resolution passed by the society while tendering the nomination. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming that he will stand in a better footing than that of the 8th respondent and that his name is approved by the society in a resolution passed in its meeting where the 8th respondent is also a party and therefore he is precluded from contesting the election does not stand to reason. The said contention urged by the petitioner is not supported by aforesaid decision. 6. In that view of the matter, writ petition filed challenging the acceptance of nomination of 8th respondent to the election of 6th respondent-society is without basis and accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.5-Returning Officer is directed to continue the process of election from the stage where it was interfered with in these proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed.