Bombay High Court
Jugalkishor S/O. Biharilal ... vs District Co-Op. Election Officer ... on 16 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp2901.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2901 OF 2016
1. Jugalkishor S/o.Biharilal Mantri,
aged 45 yrs., Occu.: Business.
2.
Murlidhar S/o.Biharilal Mantri,
aged 47 yrs., Occu.: Business.
3. Bhagwan S/o. Atmaram Navghare,
aged 40 yrs., Occu.: Business.
4. Suresh S/o.Pannalal Darak,
aged 45 yrs., Occu.: Business.
5. Harish S/o. Chandraprakash Mandhane,
aged 35 yrs., Occu.: Business.
6. Satish S/o. Chandraprakash Mandhane,
aged 42 yrs., Occu.: Business.
7. Manish S/o. Radheshyam Oza,
aged 40 yrs., Occu.: Business.
8. Pandit S/o. Sakharam Devare,
Aged 50 yrs. Occu.: Business,
All Petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 R/o. Malegaon,
Tahsil : Malegaon, District : Washim.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:35:30 :::
Judgment 2 wp2901.16.odt
District Co-operative Election Officer,
cum District Deputy Registrar, Washim
Co-operative Societies, Washim.
.... RESPONDENT
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A.D. Sonak, A.G.P. for Respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JUNE 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the
respondent District Co-operative Election Officer / District Deputy
Registrar, Co-operative Societies rejecting the claim of the petitioners
for including their names in the final voters' list for the elections of the
Market Committee.
4. The relevant facts are :
Judgment 3 wp2901.16.odt
The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 to 7 are granted licence on 28th
January, 2014 to operate in the market area as traders. The petitioner
No.2 is granted licence on 26th February, 2014 and petitioner No.8 is
granted licence on 5th October, 2013 to operate in the market area as
traders. The petitioners are operating since the date of issuance of
licence.
The term of the members of the Market Committee was till
26th September, 2015. The State Government, exercising powers
under Section 14(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce
Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Marketing Regulation Act, 1963") extended the
term of market committee by the period of six months. The market
committee filed Writ Petition No. 5385 of 2015 before this Court in
which order is passed on 5th December, 2015 directing that the
elections of the market committee be held within six months and the
Committee in office to continue till the elections are held.
The respondent issued communication on 31st December,
2015 directing the Secretary of the Market Committee to submit
provisional voters' list of Traders' and Commission Agents Constituency.
Judgment 4 wp2901.16.odt
The respondent published the provisional voters list on 4th March,
2016. The persons desirous of submitting their objections on the
voters' list were required to do so till 7th April, 2016. As the names of
the petitioners were not included in the provisional voters' list and as
according to the petitioners, their names should have been included in
the voters' list, they submitted their objections on 6th April, 2016
requesting that their names be included in the provisional voters' list.
The respondent called for the report from the office of the Market
Committee. The office of the Market Committee submitted report that
till 17th September, 2015 i.e. the date on which the elections of the
market committee were due the petitioners had not completed two
years of their operations in the market committee. The respondent
granted hearing to the petitioners and by the impugned order rejected
their objections. The petitioners being aggrieved in the matter have
filed this writ petition.
5. The question which is required to be adverted to is
whether as per Section 13(1)(b) of the Marketing Regulation Act, 1963
the period of two years of operation in Market Committee by the
concerned member is required to be calculated from the date of grant
of licence till date on which the elections are due or the period of two
Judgment 5 wp2901.16.odt
years is required to be calculated from the date of grant of licence till
the date of issuance of notification for conduct of elections.
6. Shri A.M. Ghare, advocate for the petitioners has
submitted that the requirement as per Section 13(1)(b) of the
Marketing Regulation Act, 1963 is that the person holding licence for
not less than two years and operating in the market area as Trader and
Commission Agent is entitled to vote at the elections. It is submitted
that the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development
and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "Marketing
Regulation Rules, 1967") does not provide for any cut-off point or does
not lay down any criteria for calculating two years period, for working
out the eligibility of the trader and commission agent to vote at the
elections.
The learned advocate has argued that the language of
Section 13(1)(b) of the Marketing Regulation Act 1963 is clear and
unambiguous and only requires that the trader and commission agent
shall hold licence for not less than two years and has been operating in
the market area, to become eligible and entitled to vote at the elections
and it does not refer to any cut-off point. It is submitted that applying
Judgment 6 wp2901.16.odt
the settled principle of interpretation that the Court cannot read
something in the statute which is not provided and the plain and
simple meaning should be given to the provisions, it is submitted that it
has to be held that if the trader and commission agent holds licence to
operate in the market area for two years prior to issuance of the
notification for conducting elections, he is entitled to vote at the
elections. To fortify the submission, the learned advocate has relied on
the judgment given in the case of Smita Subhash Sawant Vs.
Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Amin & oth., reported in 2015(9) SCALE 526
(Para-30). It is submitted that if the reason given by the respondent for
excluding the names of the petitioner from the voters' list is accepted,
then the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Marketing Regulations
Act, 1963 will have to be construed to mean that the trader and
commission agent will be entitled to vote at the elections if he is
holding licence for two years to operate in the market area, prior to the
date on which the elections become due and if the provisions are
interpreted in such manner then this Court will be adding "till elections
of market committee are due" at the end of Section 13(1)(b) of the
Marketing Regulations Act, 1963 which is not permissible.
Judgment 7 wp2901.16.odt
It is submitted that the petitioners are admittedly holding
license for more than two years till the notice was published for
preparing the provisional voters' list and therefore, their names have to
be included in the provisional voters' list.
7. The learned A.G.P. has supported the impugned order and
has submitted that the elections of the Market Committee were due on
17th September, 2015 and if the elections would have been held on
time, the petitioners were not entitled to vote as the period of two
years as required by Section 13(1)(b) of the Marketing Regulation Act,
1963 would not have been completed. It is submitted that the
postponement of the elections of the market committee is only
fortuitous circumstance and it will not entitle the petitioners to vote at
the elections as otherwise they were not eligible to vote if the elections
would have been held on 17th September, 2015. It is submitted that
the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Marketing Regulation Act,
1963 are required to be interpreted considering the circumstances in
normal course. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
8. The principles of statutory interpretation are well
established. In the judgment given in the case of Smita Subhash
Sawant (supra) in paragraph 30 it is laid down as follows :
Judgment 8 wp2901.16.odt
"30. It is a settled principle of rule of interpretation
that the Court cannot read any words which are not
mentioned in the Section nor can substitute any words
in place of those mentioned in the section and at the
same time cannot ignore the words mentioned in the
section. Equally well settled rule of interpretation is
that if the language of statute is plain, simple, clear
and unambiguous then the words of statute have to be
interpreted by giving them their natural meaning.
[See. Interpretation of statute by G.P. Singh 5th
Edition page 44/45]. Our interpretation of Section
33(1) read with Section 28(k) is in the light of this
principle."
In the judgment given in the case of Afcons Infrastructure
Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., reported in (2010) 8
SCC 24, in paragraph 20, it is recorded as follows :
"20. The principles of statutory interpretation are well
settled. Where the words of the statute are clear and
unambiguous, the provision should be given its plain
and normal meaning, without adding or rejecting any
words. Departure from the literal rule, by making
structural changes or substituting words in a clear
statutory provision, under the guise of interpretation
will pose a great risk as the changes may not be what
the legislature intended or desired. ..."
Section 13(1)(b) of the Marketing Regulation Act, 1963
and the Marketing Regulation Rules, 1967 do not provide for any
cut-off date in the matter. The plain and simple meaning of the
provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Marketing Regulation Act, 1963
Judgment 9 wp2901.16.odt
make it clear that the traders and commission agents, holding licences
for not less than two years to operate in the market area are eligible to
vote at the elections of the Market Committee.
9. The Marketing Regulation Act, 1963 is enacted to develop
and regulate the marketing of the agricultural and certain other
produce in the market areas and to confer the powers upon the market
committees to be constituted in connection with or acting for the
purposes connected with such markets.
To achieve this object the market committees are required
to be constituted as per Section 13 of the Marketing Regulation Act,
1963 which provides for proper representation to various
constituencies and the representatives of the various constituencies are
to be elected by the persons who are given the right to vote. The
entitlement of any person to vote at the elections of the Market
Committee conferred by the statute cannot be obliterated by reading
the cut-off date in the provision, which is neither provided under the
Act nor under the Rules.
10. The provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Marketing
Judgment 10 wp2901.16.odt
Regulation Act, 1963 deal with the right of trader and commission
agent to vote at the elections of the Market Committee. Going by the
plain and simple meaning of the provision, any trader and commission
agent who holds licence for the period for not less than two years to
operate is entitled to vote and it will have to be given the meaning that
the trader and commission agent should be holding licence to operate
in the market area for two years till the declaration of the election
programme. In my view, if the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the
Marketing Regulation Act, 1963 are read to mean that the trader and
commission agent who holds licence for operating in the market area
for two years till the elections of the market committee become due, it
would amount to reading something in the provisions, contrary to the
object of the Act.
In the judgment given in the case of Mahadeolal Kanodia
Vs. The Administrator-General of West Bengal, reported in 1960 (3) SCR
578, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows :
"........Third rule is that if any legislation, the general
object of which is to benefit a particular class of persons,
any provision is ambiguous so that it is capable of two
meanings one which would preserve the benefit and
another which would take it away, the meaning which
preserve it should be adopted........"
Judgment 11 wp2901.16.odt
If the submissions made on behalf of the respondent are to
be tested, in the light of the above principle, the meaning which
preserve the right of the trader and commission agent to vote will have
to be adopted. Moreover, the Legislature would have incorporated the
cut-off point in the provisions by laying down that only those traders
and commission agents who hold license for two years on the date on
which the elections of market committee are due, would be entitled to
vote.
11. In the judgment given in the case of Surekha Vs. District
Deputy Registrar, reported in 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 943 similar provisions of
Section 27(3A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
have been considered by this Court and are interpreted by giving it a
meaning which preserves the right of the voter.
12. For the above reasons, the impugned order is
unsustainable and has to be set aside. The respondent has not pointed
out any other ineligibility of the petitioners on the basis of which their
names are required to be excluded from the final voters' list.
Judgment 12 wp2901.16.odt
13. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) It is declared that the names of the petitioners are required
to be included in the final voters' list of traders and
commission agents' constituency for the elections of the
market committee.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
