Bombay High Court
Ashok Annasaheb Kakde And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 29 March, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
wp946.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.946 OF 2016
1) Ashok s/o Annasaheb Kakde,
Age-40 years, Occu:Agriculture
& Director of A.P.M.C., Sailu,
R/o-Kawad Dhan, Tq-Sailu,
Dist-Parbhani,
2) Rajkishor s/o Shivprasad Jaiswal,
Age-38 years, Occu:Agriculture
and Chairman of V.K.S.S.
Society Ltd., Rajwadi,
Tq-Sailu, Dist-Parbhani.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Secretary, Cooperation,
Marketing and Textile
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai,
2) The Director of Marketing,
Central Building, Pune-1,
3) The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist-Parbhani,
4) The Chairman,
Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Sailu,
Tq-Sailu, Dist-Parbhani,
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:57:04 :::
wp946.16
2
5) Agriculture Produce Market
Committee, Sailu,
Tq-Sailu, Dist-Parbhani,
Through its Secretary.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.V.D. Salunke Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr.V.M. Kagne, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.
1 to 3.
Mr.S.J. Salunke Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 4 and 5.
...
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 14TH MARCH, 2016.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 29TH MARCH, 2016.
JUDGMENT [PER A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for
the parties, the Petition is taken up for final
disposal at admission stage.
2. This Petition is filed seeking directions
to quash the order dated 8th January 2016 passed
wp946.16
by the State extending term of the Board of
Directors of Agricultural Produce Market Committee
('A.P.M.C.' in brief), Sailu, for six months with
effect from 6th January 2016.
3. The Petition claims and it is argued on
behalf of the Petitioners that the elections of
A.P.M.C., Sailu were held on 6th January 2011 and
the Committee got constituted on that day. The
term of the Managing Committee was for five years
and was to expire on 5th January 2016. As per the
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 ("Act" in
brief) and Rules of 1967 ("Rules" in brief), it is
duty of the District Deputy Registrar of Co-
operative Societies and the Collector to hold
elections of A.P.M.C. before expiry of the term.
The District Deputy Registrar (Respondent No.3)
sent letter dated 21st November 2015 (Exhibit A)
to the A.P.M.C., informing about the term which
was to expire and asking deposit of Rupees Two
wp946.16
Lakhs for holding elections. The letter required
preparation of sets of voters list also. The
District Deputy Registrar sent reminders dated 4th
December 2015 and 28th December 2015. The
A.P.M.C., vide letter dated 29th December 2015,
informed District Deputy Registrar regarding
Assistant Registrar forwarding sets of voters list
to it and that the A.P.M.C. was depositing Rupees
Fifty Thousand as an advance towards expenses of
elections.
4. It is stated by the Petitioners that on
6th October 2015, A.P.M.C. passed resolution to
request Government for extension for a period of
six months and the District Deputy Registrar sent
report dated 28th December 2015, that he had no
objection to extend the term. It is stated that
one M.L.A. from Pathri Taluka, wrote letter to the
Minister for Co-operation and Marketing,
requesting for extension of the term of the
Managing Committee on the basis that there was
wp946.16
drought in the area. It is argued that under
political pressure, the State has extended the
period of the body of A.P.M.C., Sailu. The learned
counsel submitted that the Chairman of A.P.M.C. is
interested in filling up 5 vacant posts in
A.P.M.C. and is interested in construction of 28
shops which were earlier found to be irregular and
thus wanted extension of the term so as to gain
profit out of such shops. It is argued that the
term of the Committee expired on 5th January 2016
and the impugned order has been issued on 8th
January 2016 giving continuity to the Committee
with effect from 6th January 2016. It is stated
that this is not permissible and once the term had
expired, only elections could have been held and
giving back dated revival, period could not have
been extended. Learned counsel for the Petitioners
relied on the case of Anandrao Yashwantrao
Nalawade and others vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, reported in 2005 (6) Bom.C.R. 174, to
claim that such an order could not have been
wp946.16
passed. Relying on the said Judgment, it is stated
that as per said Judgment it was found in the
context of Section 73-G of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960, that the Section
provided that the Committee shall cease to
function on expiry of its term and the members
thereof shall cease to hold office and the term
cannot be extended and the Government should have
appointed administrator. Learned counsel relied on
Section 14(3) of the Act of 1963 to submit that
the term of the Market Committee was only of five
years and the office could be held only for such
period. It is stated that the impugned order
should be quashed and administrator should be
appointed and the process of elections should be
completed under the supervision of administrator.
5. On behalf of Respondent No.3 - District
Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar, Co-
operative Societies has filed affidavit in reply
dated 25th February 2016. According to this
wp946.16
deponent, A.P.M.C. sought extension for the period
of six months due to drought conditions, vide
resolution dated 6th October 2015 (Exhibit R-1)
and proposal dated 4th December 2015 (Exhibit R-2)
was sent to the Director, through District Deputy
Registrar. District Deputy Registrar forwarded the
proposal to State Government on 22nd December 2015
(Exhibit R-3). The Director of Marketing, Pune
called opinion of District Deputy Registrar and
the extension was recommended by District Deputy
Registrar vide letter dated 28th December 2015
(Exhibit R-4). Thereafter the Director of
Marketing recommended to the State Government
consideration of the proposal as per Section
14(3A) of the Act of 1963. The State Government
considered drought situation and the fact that
this was first extension sought by the A.P.M.C.
and in view of the legal provisions, extension was
granted.
6. Respondent No.3 has referred to the
wp946.16
allegations regarding attempt to fill up posts by
the A.P.M.C., and given particulars which show
that vacancies were necessary to be filled up.
Even regarding the allegations made about
construction of 28 shops, it is stated that due to
complaint of M.L.A. from Jintur, Respondent No.3 -
District Deputy Registrar reported to the Director
of Marketing (Respondent No.2) to cancel
permission which had been given and the
construction has been stayed by Respondent No.2.
This Respondent has referred to the financial
condition of the A.P.M.C. to be in surplus in
earlier periods but that for the period 1st April
2015 to 31st December 2015 the A.P.M.C. was in
deficit.
7. The Petitioners have, in the Petition,
claimed that the Government cannot avoid holding
of elections on the plea of drought like
conditions without there being declaration of
drought, and when in same area elections for
wp946.16
A.P.M.C. Palam are being held. Regarding such
averments of the Petition, Respondent No.3 has
pointed out that with regard to A.P.M.C. Palam,
there were earlier two extensions already given
and thus Administrator had been appointed and
elections have become unavoidable as per Rules.
8.
Chairman of A.P.M.C. - Respondent No.4
has also filed affidavit. It has been argued on
his behalf that the allegations of mala fides with
regard to interest in filling up of vacant posts
and construction of 28 shops, are false. It is
stated that for reasons recorded in the resolution
of the Committee, extension of period was sought
which has been supported by the Director of
Marketing and Government has issued orders of
extension. It is stated that there are no
political considerations for extension of the
period. In the last three years, there has been
short fall of rain and due to drought and scarcity
wp946.16
of water, the income of the Committee has
decreased.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both
sides and gone through the matter. The Judgment
relied on by the Petitioners in the matter of
Anandrao Yashwantrao Nalawade, cited supra, was
relating to different provisions under the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. We
are concerned here with the provisions of
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Development and Regulation) Act of 1963. This
Court has already dealt with provisions of Section
14 of the Act, which relates to election and term
of office of members, Section 15 relates to
commencement of term of office of members.
Section 15A of the Act deals with provision for
appointment of administrator after normal or
extended term of office of members expires. These
provisions are dealt with in Writ Petition No.2364
of 2016 (Arun Babasaheb Dake and others vs. the
wp946.16
State of Maharashtra and others), decided on 10th
March 2016. After referring to the concerned
Sections, this Court has observed, in Para 7 of
that Judgment, as under:-
"7. The term of the Managing Committee
of A.P.M.C. is of five years from the date
of first meeting. The scheme of the Act of
1963 does not provide for axiomatic
cessation of the membership on expiry of
the term. Section 15A (1) (a) of the Act of
1963 specifically provides that all
members of the Committee shall, as from the
date specified in the order, cease to hold
and vacate their offices as members or
otherwise. As such the members of the
Committee continue to hold the office even
after expiry of the term till an order is
passed by the appropriate authority about
cessation of their office."
10. It is quite clear that at the end of
period of five years, there is no automatic
cessation of the membership. The members would
wp946.16
cease to hold and would vacate their office when
the Director or any officer not below the rank of
District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies so passes an order under sub-Section (1)
of Section 15A of the Act. Thus, there is no
substance in the arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the Petitioners that the term expired
on 5th January 2016 and the order dated 8th
January 2016 could not have granted continuity to
the Committee with effect from 6th January 2016.
There were no orders under Section 15A(1)(a) of
the Act passed, as yet.
11. We do not find any force in the
submissions of learned counsel for Petitioners
regarding the allegations of malfeasance or
misfeasance. The extension of period recorded in
the impugned order, is due to drought like
conditions.
12. Considering the affidavit in reply filed
wp946.16
by Respondent No.3, we do not find any force in
the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the Petitioners. Apart from this, Respondent No.3
has filed additional affidavit dated 7th March
2016 mentioning that the elections of the Managing
Committee of A.P.M.C. would be completed before
the expiry of the extended period i.e. 5th July
2016 and the extension to the election of the said
A.P.M.C. would not be given for the second time.
13. We accept the statement made by
Respondent No.3 in the affidavit dated 7th March
2016 that present extension of six months would
not be further extended and within this period,
the process of elections would be completed. The
Respondents shall be bound by this statement.
14. For the reasons afore stated, we pass the
following order:-
wp946.16
O R D E R
(I) Writ Petition is rejected.
(II) The Respondents shall ensure and
complete the process of elections of
A.P.M.C., Sailu before the expiry of
present period of Managing Committee,
which is up to 5th July 2016.
(III) Till the process of elections is
completed and new Managing Committee takes
over, the present Managing Committee shall
not take any policy decisions.
(IV) Rule stands discharged accordingly.
No costs.
[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
asb/MAR16
