JUDGMENT - SIRPURKAR V.S., J.:---Rule, heard forthwith, with the consent of the parties.

Petitioner No. 1, who is the Chairman of the erstwhile Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Deulgaon Raja (hereinafter called 'the Market Committee' for the sake of brevity), and petitioner No. 2, who is a member of the Managing Committee of the said Market Committee, have filed this petition, praying for a writ to quash an order dated 24-12-1996 passed by the respondent No. 2-District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Buldhana (herienafter called 'the DDR' for the sake of brevity), superseding the Market Committee under section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).

2. The Market Committee had assumed the charge on 19-6-1993 in pursuance of the elections held on 10-5-1993. The said elected Committee has ordinarily the life of five years, under section 14(3) of the Act. A notice came to be given to the said Committee as required by section 45(1) of the Act. It was alleged in the said notice by the DDR that since there were complaints received by his office regarding the irregularities in the construction of Shopping Complex as also regarding the financial affairs of the Committee, a team was appointed for enquiring into the said matters and the said team of the enquiry had submitted the report of its investigations on 2nd March, 1996, after a thorough enquiry regarding the said complaints. So also the Assistant Engineer in his office had enquired into the affairs of the construction activity by checking and cross-checking the concerned record available in the office and had filed his report on 27-3-1996, and that on the basis of the said report, the DDR had come to the conclusion that the members of the Committee, including the Chairman, Vice Chairman and the Directors had misused and abused their positions and had also committed financial irregularities. The said notice is exhaustive and number of allegations have been made in the same. It was alleged that though the shopping complex involved the expenditure of Rs. 19,52,170.00, the tenders were not properly published and they were deliberately published in the insignificant newspapers. There were number of irregularities committed in the matter of the tender notice, which was published again. It was alleged that though the revised proposal of Rs. 34,04,295.00 was passed, the Market Committee deliberately published the tender-notice as per the old rates and that too in the insignificant newspapers. It was alleged that though Shri Agrawal was prepared to construct 2% below the tender rate, the said contract was awarded in favour of one Shri Pathak whose tender was 4½% above the tender rate. It was also pointed out that the said contractor, Shri Pathak, was not even qualified to undertake the constructions of such high value as he was a registered contractor having the classification of 4-A. It was pointed out further that the material, which was used for this construction, was bound to be tested and test report was bound to be kept in the separate register, but the said reports were never obtained; so also the requisition statements regarding the materials, including the bricks, sand, cement, tins, door-frames, window-frames, were not maintained. It was pointed out that there were irregularities in the purchase of building material and heavy payments were made, without obtaining the reports from the construction Committee. The conditions in the PWD Manual and the rules provided therein were breached. The test reports of the material were also not obtained and the inferior material was used. The proper registers were also not maintained indicating the use of the material on the daily basis. So also the payments were made to the contractor, without obtaining the sanction from the construction Committee. It is also pointed out that the Market Committee withdrew Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Prov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document