Bombay High Court
Diliprao M Mokashi And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 8 December, 2016
Bench: Shantanu S. Kemkar
WP-9703-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9703 OF 2016
Diliprao M. Mokashi and Another ...Petitioners
vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rakesh Reddy, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar a/w. Mr.
Lendl Coutinho and Mr. Swapnil Mohite, for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. H.M. Inamdar, for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
ORDER RESERVED ON : 28th NOVEMBER, 2016
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 8th DECEMBER, 2016
CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR &
PRAKASH NAIK, JJ.
ORDER: (Per Shantanu Kemkar, J.)
. The Petitioners are voters of the Agricultural Produce
Market Committee, Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune (for short "the Committee").
They have challenged the order dated 1 st August, 2016 passed by the
Respondent No. 1- State whereby the term of office of the members of
the Committee has been extended by six months with effect from 6 th
September, 2016 to 5th March, 2017.
Vishal 1/10
WP-9703-2016
2. Briefly stated the Committee had submitted a letter dated
10th May, 2016 to the Director of Marketing, State of Maharashtra,
Pune seeking extension of term of the office of the members of the
Committee which was expiring on 5th September, 2016. In the
application following reasons were stated to seek the extension of
term by two years.
(i) There is severe drought situation in the entire state of
Maharashtra.
(ii) There is an ongoing dispute with regard to the village
Pimpale Jagtap which is pending in the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court.
(iii) The Market Committee of the Respondent No. 2
Committee have carried out their duties efficiently and in an
appropriate manner in the last 4 years.
(iv) The Respondent No. 2 Committee is endeavoring to
initiate onion and Pomogranate markets in the main market
Committee area.
(v) There are ongoing elections of Vividh Karyakari Sewa So-
Operative Societies in Shirur Taluka, District Pune. As a result
the members of the said societies would remain absent from
voting in the elections of the Market Committee of the
Petitioner No. 1 Committee.
3. The said application was considered by the State
Government by the impugned order and the term of the office of the
Vishal 2/10
WP-9703-2016
members of the Committee was extended by six months by directing
that during the extended period, the Committee shall hold the
election of the Marketing Committee. Since there was a typographical
error in the order dated 1st August, 2016, a Corrigendum was issued
on 17th September, 2016.
4. The case of the Petitioners is that the Committee had
failed to make out that there exists reasons beyond its control for not
holding the elections before the expiry of the term of the office of its
members. It is also the case of the Petitioners that the State
Government has mechanically extended the term without recording
the finding that there exits reasons for not holding elections before
the expiry of the term of the office of the members which are beyond
the control of the Committee. The Petitioner's further case is that their
right to have a democratically elected Committee has been affected by
the State without there being any justified reason for the same as the
impugned order has been passed when there was no fulfillment of
the requirement of the second proviso to Section 14(3) of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short "the Act").
Vishal 3/10
WP-9703-2016
5. On the other hand, the Respondent-State and Respondent
No. 2 Committee have supported the impugned order. It is stated by
them that the reasons mentioned by the Committee in the application
and the reasons assigned by the State in the impugned order justifies
the extension of the term and the reasons falls under the category of
second proviso of Section 14(3) of the Act. It is further stated that the
State Government after having subjective satisfaction of the reasons
stated in the application dated 10th May, 2016 has recorded the
finding that it would be justified to extend the term of the office of
the Committee by six months, which needs no interference in this
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
7. The question involved in the Petition is as to whether the
State Government has correctly exercised the powers vested in it
under second proviso to Section 14 (3) of the Act. For ready reference
Section 14(3) is extracted below :
Vishal 4/10
WP-9703-2016
Section 14 : Election and terms of office of members :
Section 14 (1) : ...........
Section 14(2) : ............(Not relevant)
Section 14(3) : Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the
members of a Market Committee (not being a Committee
constituted for the first time) shall hold office for a period of
(five years) and the members of a Committee constituted for
the first time shall hold office for a period of two years.
Provided that, the Market Committee constituted for
the first time, may be replaced by the Government and the
new Committee so replaced shall hold office for the remainder
of the period.
Provided further that where the general election of
members of a Committee could not be held for reasons
beyond the control of the Committee before expire of the term
of office of its members as aforesaid, the State Government
may, by order in the Official Gazette, extend from time to
time, the term of office of any such Committee, so however,
that the period for which the term of office is so extended
shall not exceed the period of one year in the aggregate.
8. A bare reading of second proviso of Section 14(3) of the
Act, makes it clear that in order to extend the term of the office, the
State Government has to record its satisfaction that the general
election of the members of the Committee could not be held by it
before expiry of the term for the "reasons beyond the control of the
Committee".
9. However, we find that neither in the application nor in the
impugned order the reasons assigned for extension of the term could
Vishal 5/10
WP-9703-2016
be said to be the reasons "beyond the control of the Committee". In the
impugned order, we do not find that a satisfaction has been recorded
by the State Government to the effect that there exists reasons beyond
the control of the Committee for not holding the elections before the
expiry of terms of the office of the members of the Committee. It is
true that this Court cannot sit over the reasons assigned by the State
in the impugned order as an Appellate Court but the order do not fall
within the purview of second proviso of section 14(3) of the Act, the
order can certainly be interfered into in a Writ Petition by invoking
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to
appreciate the controversy the reasons mentioned in the order are to
be seen. So far as reason for inability to hold election on account of
elections of Vividh Karyakari Sewa Co-operative Societies being in
progress and that there is an ongoing dispute pending with regard to
the village Pimpale Jagtap, we find that in view of law laid down by
this court in the case of Hanumant Bapurao Bagal and Others vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others 1 these reasons are
unsustainable. This court in the case of Hanumant Bapurao Bagal
(supra) while dealing with the proviso to Section 14(3A) of the Act
1 2012 Vol. 114(4) Bom. L.R. 2073.
Vishal 6/10
WP-9703-2016
had come across the argument about the postponement of the
election as in regard to some of the Vividh societies, the election
process was sub judice before the Court or in same election process is
in progress and it was observed in para 8 of the said judgment, that :
8. "The second reason mentioned is that the election of
two Co-operative sugar factories in Karmala Talukar were
likely to be announced. Section 14(3A) refers to only election
programme of the State Legislature of Parliament or a Local
Authority must coincide with the election programme of the
Market Committee. The Co-operative sugar factories, by any
standard would not fit into the prescribed category. The 3rd
reason is still interesting. It is stated that the elections of
Vividh Karyakari Seva Co-operative Societies in Karmala
Taluka were already in progress and the election process in
respect of some of those Societies was sub judice before the
Court. Once again, there is no co-relation between the
election of the Marketing Committee of the Market
Committee and that of the Vividh Karyakari Seva Co-
operative Societies albeit in the same Taluka and that ground
is not recognised by Section 14(3A) of the Act."
10. As regards the reason of forth-coming rainy season, it is
not in dispute that even in the areas adjoining to the area of the
Committee, the election of the Marketing Committees were declared
and held during the very same period. Thus, this reason also cannot
be said to be the reason beyond the control of the Committee for not
holding the election.
Vishal 7/10
WP-9703-2016
11. As regards the reason that there was drought like
situation, undoubtedly that could not have been made a ground to
postpone the election at the time when the decision was taken as by
that time the rains were already started and there was no question of
drought like situation.
12. The next reason for extending the term as mentioned is
that the Committee has to complete the ongoing development work.
This reason also cannot be said to be a ground to invoke powers
under second proviso of Section 14(3) of the Act. The election which
became due cannot be postponed awaiting completion of incomplete
development work by the existing Committee much less it can not be
said to be a ground available under second proviso of Section 14(3)
of the Act.
13. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that none of
the reasons assigned in the impugned order for extending the term of
the Committee is in conformity with the requirement of the second
proviso of Section 14(3) of the Act. Thus, in our considered view
there is an error apparent on the face of record and the impugned
Vishal 8/10
WP-9703-2016
order if allowed to stand, would occasion failure of justice and would
cause further delay in holding the elections which in democratic
setup has to be conducted within the time frame.
14. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 1 st
August, 2016 (corrected vide order dated 17 th September, 2016)
passed by the Respondent No. 1 - State of Maharashtra deserves to be
and is hereby quashed.
15. Since the term of the Committee has already expired, we
direct the State Government to appoint an Administrator on the
Committee within two weeks. The Administrator so appointed shall
take all necessary steps as expeditiously as possible to ensure holding
of the election of the Committee at the earliest.
16. With these directions, the Petition stands disposed of.
(PRAKASH NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)
Vishal 9/10
WP-9703-2016
17. After pronouncing the judgment, a prayer has been made
to stay the operation of the order pronounced today. We do not feel it
to be a fit case to stay the operation. Request is rejected.
(PRAKASH NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)
Vishal 10/10
