JUDGMENT - MHASE S.B., J.:---Heard Mr. D.J. Choudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E.P. Savant, learned Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5.

Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. This is a petition filed by one of sitting Directors of the respondent No. 5 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hingoli, which is established and functioning under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The elections to the Board of Directors of the said Market Committee were held on 3-7-1997 and the first meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 13-8-1997. The terms of the Market Committee is of five years, and therefore, the term of the Board of Directors of the said Market Committee has come to an end on 12-8-2002. The Collector was expected to complete the elections before 12-8-2002. As there is failure on the part of the Collector to hold the elections, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions that the elections of the respondent No. 5 Market Committee be directed to be held.

3. Mr. Savant, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, has filed affidavit on record, explaining as to how the election could not be held and has tendered the election programme. From this election programme the date of publication of voters list is already over i.e. on 27-8-2002 on which date the list has been published. The further dates i.e. the date for hearing the objections, publication of final list of voters after corrections and the date of filing nomination papers etc. have been shown in the said election programme. Thus, the election process, according to Mr. Savant has already commenced and it will be completed by 22nd December, 2002. The said programme is taken on record and marked "X" for identification purposes.

4. Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 Market Committee has objected for directing the election programme. According to him, the term of the Board of Directors of the Market Committee is extended by the Government by order dated 1-8-2002 by invoking the powers under section 14(3) of the Act and the extension has been granted for a period of six months. Not only that, if the elections cannot be completed within that period of six months, the Government is entitled to grant further extension for a period of six months, thereby aggregate extension of one year is permissible under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 14, and therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to direct the election.

5. What we have noticed in this case is that the terms of the Board of Directors of the Market Committee was for a period of five years and before the said term of the Board of Directors comes to an end, it was duty of the Collector to complete the election. However, if the elections are not completed, then in that circumstances, since the term of the elected members is over, they will have to vacate the elected posts and the Government will have to appoint the administrator on the said Market Committee. However, as the duty to conduct the elections has been cast on the Collector, and if the Collector fails to hold the election, then in that circumstances, the elected body in the office will be unnecessarily prejudiced. Not only that, but the same will be one of the ways to see that the administrator is appointed on the Market Committee and thereafter to conduct the elections. Taking into consideration the possible misuse of the provisions, the legislature has introduced the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 and it has been provided that because of the failure on the part of the Collector to hold the elections, the elected body should not suffer. Therefore, provision for extension of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document