Bombay High Court
Hukumchand S/O Givindrao Amdhare ... vs The Collector, Nagpur And Others on 18 December, 2015
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 3130/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3130/2015
1. Hukumchand S/o Govindrao Amdhare,
aged about 59 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Ranala, Tahsil : Kamptee,
District : Nagpur.
2. Pramod S/o Atmaram Mahalle,
aged about 53 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Yerkheda, Tahsil : Kamptee,
District : Nagpur.
3. Umrao S/o Jangluji Makade,
aged about 60 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
resident of Bhilgaon Naka, Tahsil : Kamptee,
District : Nagpur. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The Collector, Nagpur.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Mouda, District : Nagpur.
3. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Plot No.8, Hindustan Colony,
Amravati Road, Nagpur.
4. Shri Gyandeorao Govindrao Gawande,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Kadholi, Post. Dighori,
Tahsil : Kamptee, Nagpur.
5. Smt.Geetabai Rambhau Ingole,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Sawali, Post. Dighori,
Tahsil : Kamptee, Nagpur.
6. Smt. Jayabai Ramesh Kadu,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Sonegaon Raja, Post. Dighori,
Tahsil : Kamptee, Nagpur.
7. Shri Sudhakar Panjabrao Bharde,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Babhulkheda, Post. Champa,
Tahsil : Kamptee, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:55:39 :::
WP 3130/15 2 Judgment
8. Shri Gulabrao Eknath Khante,
aged : Major, Occupation : Business,
Resident of Kapsi, Post. Bhandewadi,
Tahsil : Kamptee, Nagpur.
9. Shri Baba Balaji Kadu,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Wadoda, Tahsil : Kamptee,
Nagpur.
10. Shri Sheshrao Bapurao Dhengre,
aged : Major, Occupation : Business,
Resident of Shirpur, Post. Kapsi,
Tahsil : Kamptee, Nagpur.
11. Shri Umesh Bhagwantrao Radke,
aged: Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Ajani, Tahsil : Kamptee,
Nagpur.
12.
Shri Deorao Vithoba Dakhole,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Khasala, Post. Khairi,
Tahsil : Kamptee, Nagpur.
13. Shri Habib Kamam Chhaware,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Babhulkheda, Tahsil : Kamptee,
Nagpur.
14. Shri Ramkrushna Tulshiram Pragat,
aged:Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Wadoda, Tahsil : Kamptee,
Nagpur.
15. Shri Manohar Sadashiv Korde,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Temsana, Tahsil : Kamptee,
Nagpur.
16. Shri Tejram Baliramji Gorle,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Gada, Post. Ajani,
Tahsil : Kamptee, Nagpur.
17. Shri Dumdeo Bhauraoji Natkar,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Neri, Tahsil : Kamptee,
Nagpur.
18. Shri Shankarlal Mohanlal Agrawal,
aged : Major, Occupation : Agriculturist,
Resident of Sarafa Oli, Kamptee,
Tahsil : Kamptee, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:55:39 :::
WP 3130/15 3 Judgment
19. Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Near Hockey Building, J.N. Road,
Kamptee, District : Nagpur,
through its Secretary. RESPONDENTS
Shri Uday Dastane, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri Anand Parchure and Shri A.D. Dangore, counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 8 & 10.
Shri M.D. Lakhey, counsel for the respondent no.19.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 15 AND 18 , 2015.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought the cancellation
of the special meeting dated 02.06.2015 for considering the No
Confidence Motion against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 as the respondent
nos.4 to 7, who participated in the special meeting, were disqualified
from being the members of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Kamptee.
3. While the Agriculture Produce Market Committee of Kamptee
was constituted, the respondent nos.4 to 6 were elected by the members
of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies and
WP 3130/15 4 Judgment
Multipurpose Credit Co-operative Societies as per Section 13(1)(a)(i) of
the Act of 1963. So also, the respondent no.7 was elected by the
members of Village Panchayats functioning in the market area as per
Section 13(1)(a)(ii). Admittedly, when a notice for calling the special
meeting on 02.06.2015 to consider the No Confidence Motion against the
petitioner nos.1 and 2 was served on the petitioners and the respondents,
the respondent nos.4 to 6 had ceased to be the members of the managing
committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies. Their terms as members
of the managing committee had expired and they were not re-elected as
members of the managing committee in the subsequent elections. So
also, the term of the respondent no.7 as a member of the Village
Panchayat had expired and the respondent no.7 was not re-elected as a
member of the Village Panchayat. Despite the fact that the respondent
nos.4 to 7 had ceased to be the members of the managing committees of
the Agriculture Credit Societies and Multipurpose Credit Co-operative
Societies, the Sub-Divisional Officer invited the respondent nos.4 to 7 to
the special meeting for considering the No Confidence Motion against the
petitioners. The application made by the petitioner no.3 seeking the
disqualification of the respondent nos.4 to 7 as members of the market
committee was dismissed by the District Deputy Registrar. When this
matter was heard for admission, this Court had, by an interim order dated
29.05.2015, refused to stay the scheduled meeting, dated 02.06.2015 and
WP 3130/15 5 Judgment
had directed that the votes be kept in a sealed cover in the custody of
Sub-Divisional Officer, Mouda, District Nagpur so that the outcome of the
motion should not be declared.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance
on the judgment reported in 2013(6) Mh.L.J. 688 (Purushottam s/o
Pandharinath Tonpe Versus Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Wardha & Others) that the entitlement of a member to hold the Office of
the market committee continues only till such time that such member
continues to be the representative of the members on the managing
committee of the Co-operative Societies or the Village Panchayats. It is
submitted that no sooner than the person vacates his office as a member
of the Village Panchayat or a member of the managing committee of an
Agriculture Credit Society, the said person cannot continue as a member
of the market committee. It is submitted that the respondent nos.4 to 7
had ceased to be the members of the managing committees of the
societies and the village panchayat and, hence, they cannot continue as
members of the market committee.
5. Per Contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.4
to 7 that it is held by this Court in an unreported order, dated 19.01.2015
in Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013 that the member of the market
WP 3130/15 6 Judgment
committee, elected by the members of the managing committee of the
Agriculture Credit Societies and the Multipurpose Credit Co-operative
Societies under Section 13(1)(a)(i) would not cease to be a member of
the market committee merely because his term as a member of the
managing committee of the society has come to an end and he is not re-
elected. It is submitted that it is held in the order dated 19.01.2015 that
the provisions of Section 13(1)(a)(i) do not mandate that an elected
member of the market committee should also be a member of the
managing committee of the Agriculture Credit Society or the
Multipurpose Credit Co-operative Society. It is stated that by relying on
the order dated 19.01.2015, the District Deputy Registrar has rightly
rejected the application of the petitioner no.3 for disqualification of the
respondent nos.4 to 7. It is stated that the order of the District Deputy
Registrar is in consonance with the order of this Court dated 19.01.2015 in
Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013 & Others.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also relied on the
order dated 19.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013 & Others to
support the order of the District Deputy Registrar. It is stated that since
the application of the petitioner no.3, seeking disqualification of the
respondent nos.4 to 7 was dismissed, the Collector had rightly called the
special meeting for considering the No Confidence Motion against the
WP 3130/15 7 Judgment
petitioner nos.1 and 2 and permitted the respondent nos.4 to 7 to
participate in the meeting.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the judgment reported in 2013(6) Mh.L.J. 688 (Purushottam
s/o Pandharinath Tonpe Versus Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Wardha & Others) and the unreported order of this Court dated
19.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013, it appears that the
respondent nos.4 to 7 ought to have been disqualified from the
membership of the market committee. Admittedly, the respondent nos.4
to 7 were either the members of the managing committees of the
Agriculture Credit Societies or the members of the Village Panchayats
when they were elected to the market committee that was constituted
under Section 13(1) of the Act. However, during the term of the market
committee, the respondent nos.4 to 6 admittedly ceased to be the
members of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies
and the respondent no.7 ceased to be the member of the Village
Panchayat, in view of the expiry of the term of the managing committees
of the societies and the Village Panchayat respectively. Though the
respondent nos.4 to 6 ceased to be the members of the managing
committee as they were not re-elected after the expiry of their term and
though the respondent no.7 also ceased to be a member of the Village
WP 3130/15 8 Judgment
Panchayat after his term as a member of the Village Panchayat expired
and he was not re-elected, the respondent nos.4 to 7 continued to be the
members of the market committee. In the reported decision, it is held
that the representative of the Village Panchayat would cease to be the
member of the market committee and would be deemed to have vacated
his office as the member of the market committee as soon as he vacates
the office of the membership of the Village Panchayat. While holding so,
this Court had not only considered the provisions of Section 13 and 15 of
the Act but, had also considered Rules 35 and 36 of the Maharashtra
Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules,
1967. Rule 35 of the Rules refers to the preparation of the list of voters
and the division of the market area into constituencies. There are four
constituencies out of which two are the Co-operative Societies
Constituency and the Village Panchayat Constituency, with which we are
concerned. Rule 36 refers to the preparation of the voters list. The
District Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is called upon by
the Collector to prepare a list of members of the managing committees of
the Agriculture Credit Societies and the Multipurpose Credit Co-operative
Societies. So also, the list of members of the Village Panchayats is also
prepared under Rule 36(1). The names of the respondent nos.4 to 6 were
included in the voters list only because they were the members of the
managing committees of the Agriculture Credit societies and the
WP 3130/15 9 Judgment
Multipurpose Credit Co-operative Societies at the relevant time when the
election to the market committee was held. During the term of the
market committee, the respondent nos.4 to 6 had ceased to be the
members of the managing committees of the Societies as the term of the
managing committees had expired and the respondent nos.4 to 6 were
not re-elected. So was the case with the respondent no.7, who ceased to
be the member of the Village Panchayat while he continued as a member
of the market committee, despite the expiry of the term as a member of
the Village Panchayat. Only those agriculturists, whose names appear in
the voters list for the concerned constituencies, could be elected as the
members of the market committee under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act.
Sub-Section (1)(a) of Section 13 provides that fifteen members on the
market committees would be the agriculturists whose names appear in
the voters list for the concerned constituencies. Since out of fifteen
members that are referred to in Sub-Section 1(a) of Section 13, eleven are
to be elected by the members of the managing committee of the
Agriculture Credit Societies and the Multipurpose Credit Co-operative
Societies and four by the members of the Village Panchayats, the names
of such agriculturists should find place in the voters list prepared for these
constituencies, under Rule 36 of the Rules. A person's name cannot be
included in the voters list for being elected under Section 13(1)(i) from
that constituency unless the said person is the member of the managing
WP 3130/15 10 Judgment
committee of the Agriculture Credit society and the Multipurpose Credit
Co-operative Society. The list of voters in the constituency of the Co-
operative societies would include only the members of the managing
committees of the societies functioning in the market area. Hence, unless
a person's name finds place in the voters list from either of the
constituencies, i.e. the Co-operative Societies Constituency or the Village
Panchayats Constituency, they cannot be elected as members on the
committee under Section 13(1)(a)(i) and (ii). Rule 37 provides that the
voters list published finally under Rule 36 shall be conclusive evidence for
the purpose of determining whether a person is qualified to vote or, as
the case may be, is not qualified to be elected at any election. The voters
list could be modified or amended under the provisions of the Rules. On
a combined reading of Sections 13 and 15 of the Act and Rules 35, 36
and 37 of the Rules of 1967, it is clear that the respondent nos.4 to 7
were liable to be disqualified as members of the market committee. The
District Deputy Registrar was not justified in rejecting the application
made by the petitioners for disqualification of the respondent nos.4 to 7.
While deciding Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013 and Others, the provisions
of Rules 35, 36 and the other rules were not brought to the notice of this
Court. In the reported decision, this Court has considered the provisions
of the Rules of 1967 while holding that the member of the market
committee elected from the Village Panchayats Constituency would be
WP 3130/15 11 Judgment
deemed to have vacated the office of the market committee after he
ceases to be the member of the village panchayat. In our view, only a
person, whose name finds place in the voters list under Rule 36 of the
Rules of 1967, could be elected as a member of the market committee
under section 13(1)(a) and since the respondent nos.4 to 7 had ceased to
be the members of the managing committee of the Agriculture Credit
Societies and Village Panchayat, they also ceased to be the members of
the market committee.
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. It is hereby declared that the respondent nos.4 to 7 are
disqualified as members of the market committee from the date on which
they ceased to be the members of the managing committee of the
Agriculture Credit Societies and the Village Panchayat. Consequently,
they were not entitled to participate in the special meeting. Since by the
order dated 29.05.2015, we had permitted the holding of the special
meeting to consider the motion of no confidence and had directed that
the votes be kept in a sealed cover in the custody of the respondent no.2-
Sub-Divisional Officer, Mouda, the Collector, Nagpur shall consider
whether the requisition signed by some of the disqualified respondents,
i.e. respondent nos.4 to 7 for calling the special meeting, would be valid
or not, after hearing the parties concerned within a period of six weeks.
WP 3130/15 12 Judgment
If the Collector is of the opinion that the requisition would not be bad and
the special meeting was rightly called, the Collector may proceed to
declare the result of the election but, without considering the votes of the
respondent nos.4 to 7.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
