2010 Supreme(Bom) 180

In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE
Babasaheb s/o Apparao Akat & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.488 OF 2010
Decided on : 05-02-2010

Headnote:Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Section 15-A - Appointment of Administrator - Extension of term of Committee - Completion of election process - Terms of present committee expired on 11.7.2009 - Not extended - Consequences under Section 15-A of Act ought to follow by Competent Authority - Proposals of election and extention of terms of Committee kept pending by appropriate authority and passed impugned orders - Impugned order set aside - Appropriate Authority directed to pass orders on proposal submitted by petitioner - Present committee continue to discharge its activities - However cannot take policy decision until necessary directions issued by Appropriate Authority - Writ petition allowed. - In the present case, however Court have notice that respondent No. 7 submitted proposal for extention of the term highlighting the fact that the elections could not be held before the expiry of the term for no fault of the present Committee and for that reason, it was just and proper to extend the term which can be extended upto a period of one year as provided by the second proviso under sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act. The appropriate authority instead of first considering the said proposals after lapse of about five months from the submission of the proposals proceeded to straightway appoint Administrator to take over the affairs of the respondent No. 7 Committee. Section 14 of the Act is of some relevance for considering the controversy at hand. Court concerned with Section 14(3) which provides that except as otherwise provided in the Act, the members of the Market Committee shall hold office for a period of five years as is applicable to the present case. Second proviso under the said sub-section, however, stipulates that where the general election of members of a Committee could not be held "for the reasons beyond the control of the Committee" before expiry of the term of office of its member, the State Government may by order in the official Gazette extend the term of the office of any such Committee which can be upto a period of one year in the aggregate. This is obviously an enabling provision. It bestows power in the respondent No. 1 to extend the term of the Committee in specified situation. That power is coupled with duty to act in time and decide justify and reasonably. If the State Government were to consider the proposals submitted by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the period of present Committee could be extended maximum upto 10th July, 2010. However the proposals were kept pending by the appropriate authority for reasons best known to it. Instead, the impugned orders came to be issued to appoint the Administrator to take over the affairs of respondent No. 7 Committee. On conjoint and harmonious reading of second proviso under Section 14(3) and Section 15 of the Act, the appropriate authority had at least two different options to deal with the present situation. For it is not the case of the authority or for that matter the intervenor that the present members of the Committee were responsible for not holding the election of the Committee before the expiry of their term. On the other hand, the material on record would go to show that respondent No. 7 commenced the exercise of conducting the election well in advance, as back as on 6.1.2009. The fact that the election could not be held due to intervening Parliamentary and Assembly elections, is also not in dispute. There is nothing on record or brought to notice by the official respondents or the Intervenor, which would remotely suggest that there was any allegation of maladministration or misfeasance committed by the members of the present Committee. In such a situation, ordinarily, the appropriate authority ought to favourably consider the proposal for extending the term of the present Committee by invoking the second proviso under Section 14(3) of the Act. Assuming that the appropriate authority was inclined to appoint the Administrator, it was open to it to appoint the present members as the Board of Administrators, instead of appointing the respondent No. 6 as the sole Administrator.

       In Court is opinion in law, the approach of the appropriate authority in issuing the orders dated 14.1.2010, and 20.1.2010 therefore cannot be sustained, in the fact situation of the present case. In the circumstances this petition ought to succeed. Court would however leave it open to the appropriate authority to consider the course of either extending the term of the present Committee upto one year from the date of expiry of the term which event has occurred on 11.7.2009. In the alternature it will be open to the appropriate authority to resort to the dispensation of the Board of Administrators of which members of the present Committee can be continued as members of that Board. The impugned decision is set aside and instead it is left open to the appropriate authority to pass orders as may be advised in accordance with law, on the proposals submitted by the petitioners dated 28.7.2009 and 14.12.2009 or to appoint the Board of Administrators, as the case may be. That be done within Ten days from today. Further the respondent would be obliged to ensure that the election of respondent No. 7 is conducted expeditiously irrespective of the nature of further order that would be passed by the appropriate authority. It will be obligatory for the authority to ensure the election programme is notified as per the statutory requirement since the final voters list has already been published on 22.1.2010. The Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, on instructions stated that it will be possible to conclude the election within two months from today. This assurance is accepted.