Arun Krishna Patil And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 26 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. By way of filing of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 27th March, 2006 whereby the District Deputy Registrar, Co-Opertaive Societies, Thane has dissolved the Kalyan Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee invoking the provisions of Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 and rendered the said Committee ineffective.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are the members of the Kalyan Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, having been duly elected in the election held on 20th April, 2004 for five years. The Respondent No. 2 is District Deputy Registrar and Respondent No. 3 is Director of Marketing who has overall control on the affairs of the Market Committee.

3. The proposal which was submitted by the Agricultural Produce Marketing committee, Kalyan for filling up the backlog of backward class category persons was considered and approved by the Respondent No. 3 and accordingly approval was granted to 14 posts on 18th August, 2004.

4. In pursuance to the order passed by the Respondent No. 3 for the appointments, Chairman of the said Committee appointed 30 candidates, though sanction was granted by the Respondent No. 3 for appointment of 14 candidates to fill up the backlog of vacancies.

5. The Respondent No. 3 appointed Assistant Director of Marketing to conduct an enquiry and submit his report to the Respondent No. 3 in respect of 30 appointments made by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, though sanction was granted only for appointment of 14 posts. Accordingly, the Assistant Director of Marketing after enquiry submitted his enquiry report on 16th May, 2005 to the Respondent No. 3.

6. In pursuance of the report submitted by the Assistant Director of Marketing, the Respondent No. 3 passed order on 17th May, 2005 thereby directed Kalyan Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee to forthwith cancel the appointments of 30 persons made illegally.

7. Inspite of the order dated 17th May, 2005 passed by the Respondent No. 3, Chairman of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Kalyan, passed a resolution justifying the 30 appointments made by him. The present Appellants opposed said resolution.

8. The Respondent No. 2 the Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies issued show cause notice to the Kalyan Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee calling explanation from it as to why the said Committee should not be dissolved and as to why the administrator should not be appointed over the said Committee.

9. Pursuant to the show cause notice given by Respondent No. 2, the members of Managing Committee appeared before Respondent No. 2 and submitted their reply. After making necessary enquiry and completing formalities Respondent No. 2 was pleased to pass order on 27th March, 2006, invoking the provisions of Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 thereby dissolving the Kalyan Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and appointing an Administrator over the Kalyan Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee.

10. The Petitioners have challenged the order of the Respondent No. 2 dated 27th March, 2006 passed by it under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 thereby dissolving the Kalyan Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS:

11. Though many grounds are raised in the petition learned Senior Counsel Mr.Dhakephalkar appearing for the Petitioners, confined his arguments only on one point viz., Perusal of the Notification dated 30th March, 2006, it is clear that no reasons are published in the said Notification. Section 45 of the A.P.M.C. Act clearly contemplates that reasons should be published in the Notification, since the reasons are not published in the said Notification, there is no compliance of Section 45 of the A.P.M.C. Act and hence the impugned order as well as Notification are bad in law.

On the basis of the aforesaid ground, the learned senior counsel submitted that Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 clearly contemplates that reasons should be published in notification and since the reason for supersession of the Managing Committee are not published in the notification in the official Gazette, there is no compliance of Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 and hence the impugned order as well as notification issued by the State Government is bad in law.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS

12. The Advocate appearing for the Respondents as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that it is not necessary to publish reasons with Notification while publishing the same in the Official Gazette. It is the contention of the Advocate appearing for the Respondents that the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 has taken effect and Administrator has been appointed in place of the Committee. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. The Notification issued by the Government in the Official Gazette superseding the Market Committee is in accordance with Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 and, therefore, Writ Petition be dismissed.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

13. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and we are of the considered opinion that the Notification superseding the Managing Committee of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee at Kalyan issued in Official Gazette without reasons therefor is not in accordance with provisions of Section 45(1) of the Maharshtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 for the reasons stated herein below.

14. The provisions of Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 reads thus:

45(1) If, in the opinion of the State Government, a Market Committee or any member thereof, is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in performing the duties imposed on it or him by or under this Act, or abuses its or his powers or wilfully disregards any instructions issued by the State Government or any officer duly authorised by it in this behalf arising out of audit of accounts of the Market Committee or inspection of the office and work thereof, the State Government may, after giving the Committee or member, as the case may be, an opportunity of rendering an explanation, by notification in the Official Gazette, with reasons therefor, supersede such Market Committee, or remove the member, as the case may be; and where a member is removed, the State Government shall appoint any person as a member of such Committee in his place for the remainder of his term of office:

15. On mere perusal of the provisions of Section 45, it is clear that whenever State Government comes to the conclusion to take action of superseding against the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee for the reasons stated in the section itself, the State Government can do so only after giving the Committee or Member, as the case may be, an opportunity of rendering an explanation and by Notification in the Official Gazette, with reasons therefor to supersede the said Market Committee or remove the Members as the case may.

The Legislature while framing Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marking (Regulation) Act, 1963 in its wisdom thought it fit to make provision that while issuing Notification in the Official Gazette for superseding the Market Committee reasons therefor should be given in Notification. Therefore, it is not open to the State Government to contend that it is not necessary to give reasons alongwith Notification to be issued under Section 45(1).

16. When the statutory provisions provide a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone. In the instant case, the Notification dated 30th March, 2006 is issued by the State Government in Official Gazette without giving any reasons in support of its action to supersede the Board of Director of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Kalyan and to appoint Administrator under Section 45(2)(c) for six months.

On perusal of the Notification published in the Official Gazette, it is clear that no reason is given in the Notification and therefore the Notification issued in Official Gazette on 30th March, 2006 is not 11 in accordance with provision of Section 45(1) of The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation), Act, 1963, and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

17. It has to be borne in mind that when the State Government takes action under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 it has very serious consequences as provided under Section 45 Sub section (2) and (3) of Section. 45 Sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 45 read as under:

45(2) Upon the publication of a notification under Sub-section (1), superseding a Market Committee, the following consequences shall ensure, that is to say ;

(a) all members of the Market Committee shall as from the date of such publication be deemed to have vacated their office;

(b) all the property vesting in the Market Committee shall, subject to all its liabilities, vest in the State Government ;

(c) the State Government may by order, either constitute a new market Committee in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III or make such arrangements for the carrying out of the functions of the Market Committee as it thinks fit.

45(3) If the State Government makes an 12 order under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2), it shall transfer the assets and liabilities of the Market Committee, as on the date of such transfer, to the new Market Committee constituted as aforesaid or to the person or persons, if any, appointed for the carrying out of the functions of the Market Committee, as the case may be.

18. Mere perusal of provisions of Sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 45 makes it clear that all Members of the Marketing Committee shall as from the date of such publication be deemed to have vacated their office, all the properties vested in the Market Committee shall, subject to all its liabilities, vest in the State Government and the State Government can make alternative arrangements for carrying out the functions of the Market Committee as it thinks fit.

19. The Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are elected members of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Kalyan. The Members of the said Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Kalyan elected Petitioners as well as Respondent Nos. 4 to 10. In our opinion, the Board of Director the said Committee is reflection of popular will expressed by the Members/Voters of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee. While taking extreme action of supersession of Market Committee, the provisions of Section 45 clearly provides to issue Notification with reasons therefor in the Official Gazette.

20. In view of the mandate of Section 45 to publish reasons with Notification in the Official Gazette, we are of the opinion that the Notification issued by the State Government superseding the Board of the Director Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Kalyan without giving reasons therefor is contrary to the provisions of Section 45. In the circumstances we quash and set aside the Notification dated 27th March, 2006 issued by Shri Milind N.Borikar, the District Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Society, Thane which is published in Maharashtra Official Gazette on 30th March, 2006.

21. We direct the Administrator to hand over the charge of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Kalyan, to the elected Managing committee / Board of Director forthwith. Rule made absolute in the above terms. The Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

At this stage Mr.Nargolkar, Assistant Government Pleader requested that the order be stayed for a period of eight weeks. Mr.Amol Mhatre Advocate appearing for the Petitioner vehemently opposes grant of stay, however, in the interest of justice we find that four week will be sufficient. Therefore, the order is stayed for a period of four weeks. The original file tendered by the Assistant Government Pleader which was taken on record is hereby returned.