Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 201
Bombay High Court
(V. G. Palshikar, Actg. C. J. and Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)
TANAJIRAO RANGRAO PATIL and another - Petitioners.
V.
KOLHAPUR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, KOLHAPUR and others - Respondents.
Advocates Appeared
For petitioner: G. S. Godbole
For respondent Nos. 2 and 3: C. R. Sonawane, AGP
None for respondent No.1.
Headnote:Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act (20 of 1964) -Section 13(1) - Amendment taking away voting rights of representatives of categories mentioned in clauses (c), (d) and (e) of Section 13(1) - Amendment Act is valid. - The Amendment Act XI of 2003 amended Section 13 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1964 and provided that categories mentioned in sub-sections (c), (d) and (e) of clause (1) of Section 13 shall have no right to vote after the date of amendment. Challenging this amendment in the High Court.
Held, that for proper implementation of the scheme of the Act it is absolutely necessary that the agriculturist members of the Committee are able to function dispassionately and without fear or favour. A right to vote to persons covered by Section 13(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the Act of 1963 can have this effect and it would take away the very purpose of regulating market of agriculture produce accordingly the interest of the agricultural producers/ agriculturists will be defeated. All the three clauses are representative in nature and in their own field guide the Society and protect the interest of the agriculturists. Their role therefore basically is that of the advisors and therefore by the amending Act it is provided that they can participate and discuss in the meeting but cannot vote. It is an established canon of law that right to vote is creature of the statute. In fact elections the manner in which they are to be held, who can vote, where he can vote, what shall be the period etc. are all rights which flow from the statute which provide for such election s. A statute which can provide for the right to vote can therefore also provide the right to take away such vote. There is therefore nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in taking away right to vote of these guiding authorities. The purpose of the Act can be better achieved by permitting free vote to the members/ agriculturists after they have listened the advice from the representatives mentioned in clauses (c), (d) and (e). It is pertinent to note that no injury of any kind would be caused by denying right to vote to all these persons. In fact the effect of their voting in a particular manner may result in undemocratic decision and therefore they are kept away from the voting aspect of the Committee. No right of the society which they represent or body which they represent is in any manner hurt. It cannot in the circumstances be said that the action of doing away with the right to vote by amending Act is in any manner arbitrary. These three categories consist of heads of certain organisations or local bodies and Governments within whose jurisdiction the Committee is to function. They are there to aid and advise the members of the Committee. Their right to advise is not taken away, their right to participate is not taken away. All that has been taken away is their right to vote which if exercised in a particular manner may have influence for proper implementation of the Act. The Amendment Act is held to be valid.
V. G. PALSHIKAR, ACTG. C. J. : - By these two petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Act of 2003 amending the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 in some aspects. Since the contentions raised are identical and submissions are also made together we will dispose of both these petitions by this common order.
2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3664 of 2003 were elected fro. certain specified categories mentioned in section 13 of the Kolhapur Agricultural Market Committee and their elections were prior to the amendment to that section by the enactment which is impugned in this petition. Similar is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7629 of 2003. The petitioners have lost their right to vote as members of the Committee though they are duly elected and that according to them is violation of their statutory right, done arbitrarily and therefore liable to be set aside. The facts are not in dispute.
3. It would be necessary in order squarely deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding validity and the enactment of Maharashtra Act XI of 2003 called The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act hereinafter referred as "the Amending Act." We will consider - the enactment itself and the subsequent amendments thereto to ascertain whether amendments in any manner are illegal. The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" was legislated in the year 1963 - 64 to regulate marketing of agricultural and certain other produce in the area market to be established therefore in the State. It was also legislated to confer powers upon the Market Committees which would be constituted in connection and for the purposes of establishment of such markets and market funds for carrying out the purpose of the enactment. It was considered expedient to regulate marketing of agricultural and certain other produces in market area to bring unanimity in marketing of agricultural produce which should inure to the benefit of the manufacturer i.e. the agriculturist. It was intended to regulate the middle men and to see that in marketing of the agricultural produce maximum possible benefits got to the agriculturist and not to the middle men.
4. The Act extended to the whole of State of Maharashtra. It provided for the constitution of Agricultural Market Produce Committees in various region of the State. The regulation was to be by notification in the official gazette declaring the intention of the State to regulate marketing of such agricultural produce as IS mentioned in the notification over the area mentioned in the notification. It also provided for establishment of markets.
5. The Act provided for regulation of marketing, regulation of licenses. of persons operating in the market area notified functioning as Traders, Commission Agents, Brokers, Processors, Weighmen, Warehouseman, Measurer or another capacity connected with or in relation to the marketing agricultural produce m the notified area. Power to grant licenses for that purpose was given to the Market .Committee duly established under the Act. The power to cancel or suspend the licenses granted earlier was also conferred on Committee.
6. Section 13 of the Act provided constitution of the Market Committee for each notified area. Generally the scheme was there should be one Agricultural produce Committee for one Taluka of District. However, this was not a rigid rule but was flexible arrangement depending upon need of a particular area. Section 3 provided for constitution of the Market Committees which was to constitute of e following:
(a) Thirteen agriculturists residing in the market area;
(b) Nine persons shall be elected from amongst the. members of the Managing Committee of the Agricultural Societies. Co - operative Societies existing in the market area;
(c) Four
