Important Point: Correlation between elections of local body and “public interest” has to emerge only through reasons to be “recorded”. Unless such reasons are recorded, impact of “grounds” adverse to public interest cannot be appreciated by anybody.

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

Considering the nature of controversy, by issuing rule and making it returnable forthwith, we have heard the matter finally with the consent of Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Tembhare, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 and Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

2. The petitioners are agriculturists in the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 5 – Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). Petitioner No. 1 is the Director of Vihirgaon Seva Sahakari Sanstha, Vihirgaon, Tahsil and District – Nagpur and Petitioner No. 2 is the President of Seva Sahakari Sanstha, Bahadura, Post – Vihirgaon, Tahsil and District – Nagpur. Their societies are members of Respondent No. 5 – Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagpur, and the petitioners claim that they are voters in the elections of APMC i.e. for electing its Directors. The order dated 10.01.2017 passed under Section 14(3) and (3A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is questioned on the ground that without recording any opinion properly, as mandated by those provisions, mechanically proposal put up by the subordinates has been accepted and elections are postponed.

3. Shri Naik, learned counsel in addition submits that in 2012 elections of local authorities like Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Respondent No. 5 – APMC were simultaneously conducted. As such, the fact that the elections of these local authorities are being held, cannot be sufficient to postpone elections of Respondent No. 5 – APMC. By reading out impugned order and legal provisions, he submits that non application of mind by respondent No. 1 is apparent because the grounds prescribed in the statute and the reasons expected in support thereof, do not find any evaluation in the impugned communication. Lastly, it is submitted that the election process has already started inasmuch as on 01.12.2016, objections were invited and thereafter provisional list of voters was published on 26.12.2016. The final list of voters was also ready thereafter and it was to be published on 13.01.2017. Thus, election process had already commenced and it could not have been interdicted.

4. Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 – APMC does not dispute the fact that the election process had already started. He submits that Respondent No. 5 – APMC was ready and willing to proceed further with the election process. He, however, adds that respondent No. 5 has no particular say in the matter and it will abide by the directions of this Court.

5. The learned AGP is relying upon the impugned order and provisions of Section 14(3) and (3A) of the Act. According to him, the order expressly mentions satisfaction of the State Government and the grounds on which it is based. He submits that in present facts, distinction sought to be drawn between the reasons and ground is non existent. According to him, as the elections of local body viz. Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, were also simultaneously announced, the contingencies contemplated in Section 14(3A) are satisfied and hence action cannot be said to be either without jurisdiction or erroneous. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of writ petition. According to him, in this situation, as election can be postponed, the fact that stage of publication of final list of voters was reached, is itself not decisive.

6. Shri Naik, learned counsel, in reply, submits that today only in Writ Petition No. 6676 of 2016, this Court has taken note of status quo order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Because of those orders, election of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, cannot be conducted in near future. He adds that when in last election of APMC, simultaneous conduct of other elections was not found to be an obstacle, the impugned order passed on 10.01.2017, is unwarranted.

7. Section 14(3) of the Act stipulates that the