2013 Supreme(Bom) 2032

In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
VASANTI A. NAIK & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Purshottam S/o Pandharinath Tonpe
Versus
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Wardha & Others
Writ Petition No.4234 of 2013
Decided On : 08-10-2013

Headnote:Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Sections 13(1)(a)(ii) and 15(1) - Disqualification of Member of Market Committee. - Disqualification of Member of Market Committee on ground of his resignation as Gram Panchayat member is proper. - A perusal of aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1963 makes it clear that the Market Committee is required to be constituted as provided by Section 13 of the Act of 1963. Out of 15 agriculturists, residing in the market area, eleven are to be elected by members of the managing Committees of the Agricultural Credit Societies and Multipurpose Co-operative Societies. The other four are to be elected by members of Village Panchayats functioning therein. It is, therefore, clear that eleven members of the Market Committee are elected from the constituency of the Managing Committees of Co-operative Societies and four members are elected by a constituency comprising of members of Village Panchayats. Under the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963, a person who is a member of the Market Committee by virtue of his being a representative or holding office or holding licence from any of the categories of members referred to in Section 13(1) is entitled to hold office as such member only as long as he continues to be such representative or hold such office or such licence. It is further stipulated that on such member ceasing to be a representative or holding such office or licence, he ceases to be such member and is, therefore, deemed to have vacated his office.

       Similarly, perusal of Rule 35(1)(B) and Rule 36 of the Rules of 1967 indicate that there is a separate constituency of Village Panchayats duly carved out and a separate voters list for the constituency of members of Village Panchayats is also, required to be maintained.

       In so far as the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner continued to be an agriculturist, his ceasing to be a member of the Gram Panchayat would not disentitle him to continue as member of the Market Committee is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. The scheme of Section 13(1) of the Act of 1963 is clear in as much as it provides for representation on the Market Committee from two constituencies namely members of Managing Committees of Co-operative Societies and members of Village Panchayat’s functioning in the market area in so far as fifteen members are concerned. It is only such member of the Gram Panchayat who is eligible to contest elections from the constituency of Village Panchayats under provisions of Section 13(1)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1963. It is because such person is a member of the Gram Panchayat and his name is shown in the list of voters from the Village Panchayat’s Constituency as required by Rule 35(1)(B) read with Rule 36 of the Rules of 1967 that enables him to participate in the said election. It is, therefore, clear that the sine qua non for contesting elections of member of the market Committee from the Village Panchayat’s constituency is being a member of a Gram Panchayat. It is even the case of the petitioner that he has been duly elected as member of the Market Committee from the Village Panchayat’s constituency comprising of 679 voters. Thus, the eligibility of a person to represent such constituency continues as long as he is a member of the Gram Panchayat. The moment such member who is elected from the Village Panchayat’s constituency ceases to be a member of the Gram Panchayat, he loses the right to represent such constituency. It is in this context, therefore, that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that he was neither a representative, nor was holding office, nor holding licence and thus, was not liable to be removed as member of the Market Committee cannot be countenance d. The petitioner, in fact, was a representative of the Village Panchayats in the market area of the respondent No. 1 - Market Committee and hence, on his resignation as a member of the Gram Panchayat, he ceased to be such representative. It is clear from a reading of the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963 that the entitlement to hold office as member of the Market Committee continues only till such time that such member continues to be a representative. In fact, there is a deeming fiction that is created in the said proviso that on ceasing to be such representative, the member would be deemed to have vacated his office. That he continues to be an agriculturist cannot change the situation. Therefore, on a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the petitioner cannot continue as a member of the Market Committee after he had resigned from his membership of the Gram Panchayat.