S.A. BOBDE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the show-cause-notice dated 2.6.2010, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the post of Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Malkapur.

3. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the notice is not issued by a competent authority since it is issued by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and not by the District Deputy Registrar as required by Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is an undisputed position that the impugned notice is issued by an 'in-charge' District Deputy Registrar.

4. The contention is that though the notice is purported to have been issued by the District Deputy Registrar who is the competent authority, it is invalid. Since it is signed by an Assistant Registrar who is holding the charge of the post of the Deputy Registrar. Section 45 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation)