Bombay High Court
Eknath Ramchandra Ghandge vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 18 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:7775
(1) WP-2721-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2721 OF 2025
1. Eknath S/o Ramchandra Ghandge
Age-46 years, Occu.-Agriculturist,
R/o. Pathargavhan, Tq. Pathri,
District Parbhani. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through : Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Chh. Sambhajinagar, Tq. & District
Chh. Sambhajinagar.
2. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Parbhani. Tq. & Dist. Parbhani,
3. The Assistant Registrar, Co-op. Societies,
Sailu, Ta. Sailu, District Parbhani.
4. Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Pathri. Tq. Pathri. Dist. Parbhani.
Through : In-charge Secretary -
SadatraoTengse, Age 35 years,
Occu : Service, I/c Secretary, A.P.M.C.
Pathri, R/o Renapur, Tq. Renapur,
District Parbhani.
5. Sham s/o Uttamrao Dharme,
Age-62 years, Occu.- Agri.
(2) WP-2721-25
R/o. Loni, Tq. Pathri. Dist. Parbhani.
6. Babasaheb S/o Govindrao Lipne,
Age-57 years, Occu.- Service,
R/o Nivdi, Tq. Pathri.
District Parbhani.
7. Anil S/o Sakharam Nakhate,
Age-52 years, Occu.- Agri. & Business.
R/o. VIP Colony, Pathri.
Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani.
8. Ashok S/o Marotrao Giram,
Age-56 years, Occu.- Agri.
R/o. Babhalgaon, Tq. Pathri.
District Parbhani.
9. Prabhakar S/o Rustumrao Shinde,
Age-60 years, Occu.- Agri. & Business.
R/o. Vadi, Tq. Pathri. Dist. Parbhani.
10. Minatai Ramprasad Kolhe,
Age-48 years, Occu.- Agri.
R/o. Kayapuri, Tq. Pathri.
District Parbhani.
11. Sanjiv S/o Marotrao Satwadhar,
Age-56 years, Occu.- Agri.
Zari, Tq. Pathri. Dist. Parbhani.
12. Santosh S/o Jagannathrao Galbe,
Age-44 years, Occu.- Agri.
R/o. Dehegaon, Tq. Pathri.
District Parbhani.
(3) WP-2721-25
13. Ganesh S/o Sakharam Dugane,
Age-40 years, Occu.- Agri.
R/o. Limba, Tq. Pathri. Dist. Parbhani.
14. Kiran S/o Bharathrao Takalkar,
Age-36 years, Occu.- Agri.
R/o. Sarola, Tq. Pathri.
District Parbhani.
15. Shaikh Dastagir Shaikh Hasan,
Age-60 years, Occu.- Hamal,
R/o. Pathri, Tq. Pathri.
District Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. N. B. Khandare h/f. Mr. D. J. Choudhary
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi
Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. N. R. Pawade
Advocate for Respondent No. 7 : Mr. A. A. Khande h/f. Mr. G. V. Sukale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. P. D. Patil
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 27th JANUARY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th MARCH 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the learned
Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
(4) WP-2721-25
allowing the application filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The
petitioner is director of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Pathri, Tal. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. Respondent No.1 is the State thorugh
Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Respondent Nos. 2 and
3 are the District Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar, Co-
operative Societies. Respondent No.4 is the Agricultural Produce Market
Committee (in short "A.P.M.C."). Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 to 15 are the
members of Respondent No.4 A.P.M.C. Respondent No.6 is the Secretary
of Respondent No.4.
3. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had approached the Divisional Joint
Registrar for cancelling the resolution dated 24.01.2025 passed by the
petitioner and Respondent Nos. 7 to 15, thereby giving rights to the
petitioner to operate the bank account. Further, it was prayed for
initiation of an enquiry under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (The act is
called as the "said act" for the purpose of convenience) and to take an
action under Section 45 of the said Act.
(5) WP-2721-25
4. The facts in short are that, the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5
and 7 to 15 are the directors of A.P.M.C. Respondent No.7 was elected as
Chairman of the A.P.M.C. He was held disqualified by order dated
14.10.2024 by the District Deputy Registrar. The post of Chairman was
thus fallen vacant. Since the post of Chairman was vacant, the charge
was handed over to Respondent No.5 being Vice Chairman of the
A.P.M.C. under Rule 92(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Sale-
Purchase (Development and Regulation) Act, 1967 ("Rules" for short).
5. In the meantime, Respondent No.7 challenged his disqualification
by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal came to be
allowed by remanding the matter back to the District Deputy Registrar.
In view of setting aside the order of disqualification and remand of the
matter, Respondent No.7 took back the charge on 16.01.2025. He called
for a meeting on 24.01.2025. In the said meeting, only 10 directors were
present. The resolution that was under challenge is the resolution
whereby authority to operate bank account was taken from the Vice
Chairman i.e. Respondent No.5 and was given to the present petitioner.
(6) WP-2721-25
Respondent No.5, therefore filed an application. The challenge is that
when Chairman, Secretary and Vice Chairman are functioning, no
authority to operate the bank account can be given to any other person.
The resolution is thus against Rule 108 of the rules. The another
resolution was in respect of charge of the Secretary i.e. Respondent No.6
which came to be handed over to one Mr. B. S. Tingse. To this resolution,
the challenge was that, society cannot take any decision in respect of
taking of the charge from the Secretary on its own without prior sanction
of the higher authorities. It was thus prayed that the resolution be set
aside as per Rule 43 of the said act.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that, the Rule 108 is only directory
and not mandatory. Respondent No.5 cannot be said to be an aggrieved
party as he was absent in a meeting in spite of receiving notice. There
are allegations of misappropriation against Respondent No.5 and the
enquiry is going on against him. Respondent No.6 had gone on leave
from 26.12.2024 till 25.01.2025 and thereafter, on 24.01.2025, he had
filed an application for voluntary retirement because of health
(7) WP-2721-25
conditions. The said application was allowed. Respondent No.7-
Chairman had therefore directed the Deputy Secretary to issue notice
calling for a meeting as per by law No. 44 of the A.P.M.C. In the
meeting, resolution came to be passed and charge was handed over to
Mr. Tingse. The said resolution is also approved/sanctioned by the
District Deputy Registrar.
7. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar considered the rules and the
arguments and came to the conclusion that, both the resolutions are
against the rules. It is mainly held that, in view of Rule 108(2), the
financial transactions can be done only by the Chairman, in his absence
by the Deputy Chairman and the Secretary. In absence of Chairman and
Vice Chairman, only a member, who is specifically authorized along with
the Secretary can sign the cheques. He thus came to the conclusion that,
enquiry is necessary into the charges. So far as the another resolution is
concerned, it is held that it is against the rules. It is further held that,
there was only one subject on the agenda whereas six different
resolutions have been passed on subject which were not on agenda.
(8) WP-2721-25
There was no subject of taking over the charge of Respondent No.6 and
to hand it over to Mr. B. S. Tingse. Ultimately, the application of
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 came to be allowed. Both the resolutions came
to be cancelled and enquiry is directed. The petitioner is therefore before
This Court.
8. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khandare appearing for the
Petitioner submits that, the first resolution giving power to sign cheques
is rightly passed, as respondent No.7 himself stated that, he do not want
to sign the cheques as enquiry was going on against him and for some
time, he was disqualified. There were allegations against Respondent
No.5 and therefore charge was handed over to other person i.e. the
present petitioner. The A.P.M.C. has the power in such circumstances to
authorize some other person to do work of vice-chairman. The second
resolution was passed because the Secretary has tendered voluntary
resignation and was not in a position to look after the work of the
A.P.M.C. There was specific requisition by the directors calling for a
meeting. Since by that time, Chairman has resumed his duties. The Vice
(9) WP-2721-25
Chairman again remain absent without giving information and without
giving due intimation as required by law. The meeting was rightly
presided over by the Chairman. For any transaction, the signature of
Chairman and in his absence, by the Vice Chairman along with the
Secretary is necessary. Since, Respondent No.5 was facing charges, the
power given to a fit person i.e. the petitioner. He submits that, Rule 108
takes care of the situation, when the Chairman is not in the office or is
not available for a meeting, then the charge is given to the Vice
Chairman. There is no provision in Rule 108 providing for a contingency
where Chairman and Vice Chairman both are absent. The A.P.M.C.
certainly has the power to take appropriate decision in such cases and
such decision is rightly taken in the meeting. The resolution thus, cannot
be said to be against Rule 108. The Rule 108 needs to be interpreted in
wider sense. If such meaning is not given to Rule 108, the functioning of
the A.P.M.C would be stopped. He invites attention to Rule 93 which
requires Chairman and Vice Chairman to seek leave for a period of their
absence. The Vice Chairman was absent without taking such leave and
therefore he was taken as absent. He further drew attention to Rule
( 10 ) WP-2721-25
100(5) to submit that temporary arrangements can be made by the
A.P.M.C. One more reason, in his submission is that, for handing over
any charge to the authority to sign cheques was that an enquiry was
going on against Chairman.
9. On Maintainability of the application before the authority, he
submits that, initially, Respondent No.5 alone had filed an application. It
is not clear as to how Respondent No.6 came to be joined in the
application. The intervention of Respondent No.7 was allowed after the
file was closed. For all this, the intervention application was thus without
sufficient notice to the petitioner. The notice of hearing was on
11.02.2025 and on the said date, immediately the file was closed. He
submits that, the reliance on Rule 33 and 36 is misplaced. The
interpretation needs to be given to give effect to the provisions of the
rules. He submits that the doctrine of necessity requires the elected
persons to take decision for proper administration of the A.P.M.C. in
absence of Chairman and Vice Chairman and for that purpose, he relied
upon the following judgments :
( 11 ) WP-2721-25
(i) Balasaheb Wasade and others vs. Manohar Gangadhar
Muddeshwar and others reported in 2024 (3) Mh.L.J. 1.
(ii) Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. Ramesh and others
reported in 2022 (13) SCC 148.
He ultimately prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned
order.
10. Learned Advocate Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi for respondent No.5
vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that in the Act there is
nothing to authorize the APMC to give powers of the Chairman or Vice
Chairman to any other person. So far as handing over charge of the
Secretary is concerned, it can be done without prior sanction of the
Authorities. He relies upon sections 19 and 24 of the Act. He further
relies upon Rule 92(2) of the rules. He submits that on 04.10.2024
respondent No.7 was held to be disqualified. However, the said order
was set aside by order dated 31.12.2024 by the Appellate Authority with
directions to conduct fresh enquiry. The enquiry is thus pending against
respondent No.7. He points out that when the Agenda was prepared
( 12 ) WP-2721-25
only one subject was shown on the agenda that was in respect of seeking
powers to the petitioner. Said subject was about giving authority of
operating bank account. There was no any other resolution. Thus, there
was no question of passing any other resolution in the meeting. The
resolution also do not find place in the Register of minutes of meeting.
All the resolutions passed on the dates are recorded in a separate book.
He submits that the resolution is against bye-law No.36. He submits that
the resolutions are not confirmed in the next meeting and for this reason
the resolutions are against the law.
11. Learned Advocate Mr. Pawade for respondent No.6 also opposes
the petition. He submits that respondent No.6 was on leave from
26.12.2024 till 25.01.2025. There is also leave application on record
seeking leave for the above period. So far as voluntary resignation is
concerned, same was not accepted and therefore it cannot be said that
the Secretary was not in the office. Subsequently, the resignation was
withdrawn.
12. Learned AGP supports the order passed by the Authority.
( 13 ) WP-2721-25
13. While considering the powers and functions of the Chairman and
Vice Chairman, this Court needs to consider Rule 92 of the Rules. The
Rule 92 reads as under :
(I) The chairman shall -
(a) convene, preside at and conduct meeting of a Market Committee;
(b) have access to the records of a Market Committee;
(c) discharge all duties imposed and exercise all powers conferred on him
by or under the Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder;
(d) have control over all officers and servants of the Market Committee
subject to these rules and do the directions, if any, given by the Committee;
(e) supervise and control the execution of all the activities of the Market
Committee; and
(f) conduct or cause to be conducted correspondence and be responsible
for the keeping of accounts, for the punctual rendering the accounts, reports
and returns and for the custody of all amounts (other than those deposited in
the treasury or with a bank approved by the Director).
(II) The Vice-chairman shall-
(a) in the absence of a Chairman, preside at the meetings of a Market
Committee;
(b) exercise such of the powers and perform such of the duties of the
Chairman as the Chairman may, subject to any bye-laws made by the Market
Committee in this behalf, delegate to him by an order in writing;
(c) pending the election of the Chairman, or during the absence of the Chair-
man from the market area, or by reason of leave obtained with the permission
of the Market Committee, exercise the powers and perform the duties of the
Chairman.
14. Thus, it seems that, the Vice-chairman shall do the functions of the
Chairman, preside over the meeting of the Market Committee, exercise
such powers and perform such duties as Chairman delegated to him by
( 14 ) WP-2721-25
and order in writing and can act as a Chairman during absence of the
Chairman from the market area by reason of leave of the Market
Committee. Thus, the functions to be exercised by the Vice-Chairman are
only in absence of the Chairman. Rule 93 provides for leave of absence
to Chairman or Vice-chairman. This rule provides that, if they want to
remain absent from any meeting of the Market Committee for a period
not exceeding 30 days in any year, shall apply to the Committee for
leave. The leave can be granted by passing a resolution. If the absence is
without such leave, then Section 24 of the Act comes into picture which
provides for consequences in the present case. It is clearly seen that, the
functions of the Chairman can be exercised by Vice-chairman alone while
Chairman is on leave. There is nothing to show that the power can be
delegated to any other member to do the functions of Chairman or Vice-
chairman. The question therefore, does not arise in the present case of
Market Committee authorizing the petitioner to sign the cheques and to
look after the banking transactions. This is more so, when the Chairman
and Vice-chairman are very much there.
( 15 ) WP-2721-25
15. The question also crops up about the stand of Chairman. It is
stated that the Chairman do not want to exercise the functions and
therefore it was necessary to give authority to the petitioner. This hardly
can be accepted. The Chairman in any case cannot avoid doing the
functions or performing the duties. This Court finds that there is any
choice left to the Chairman or Vice-chairman to say that, they do not
want to exercise functions or to perform any duties. This argument
cannot be therefore digested for any reason.
16. So far as respondent No.6 is concerned, it is the petitioner himself
who requested the authority to consider all the questions together and to
dispose off the complaint instead of deciding to entertain it. It is in this
view, the complaint was finally decided. This Court finds that, this
position is not disputed. Considering all above factors, this Court finds
that resolution No.1 is totally against law and is rightly set aside by
respondent No.1.
17. So far as the second resolution is concerned, it is clearly seen that
the said subject was not included in the agenda. The said subject was
( 16 ) WP-2721-25
taken without it being in the agenda. It is further seen that there is
nothing on record that the law provides powers to the Directors to take
charge of the Secretary without previous sanction of the authority. The
second resolution is thus bad in law for above reasons. The second
resolution is also therefore rightly quashed and set aside by respondent
No.1. So far as submissions in respect of Section 40 and 45 of A.P.M.C
Act, thereby no prejudice can be said to have been agitated in the
petition. For this, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with
the said order. This Court hardly finds any reason to call for interference
at the hands of this Court.
18. Though it is submitted by Mr. Khandare that admittedly the
Secretary was not in the office, therefore, there was nothing wrong in
taking the charge and handing it over to some other person. There is
also no dispute that the Secretary had filed application seeking voluntary
retirement. Even assuming this, it would not be give power to the APMC
to hand over charge of the post of the Secretary to any other person
without prior sanction from the Authority.
( 17 ) WP-2721-25
19. Considering overall, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as
to costs.
20. Rule stands discharged.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
PRW
