JUDGMENT :

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioners are assailing the validity of Section 13(1C) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1963) introduced by Amendment Act No. XXXV of 2016 on 17.10.2016 with effect from 16.06.2016. The petitioners initially challenged the ordinance dated 16.06.2015 for amendment to Sec. 13 in the Act of 1963 and subsequent ordinances continuing the same dated 21.08.2015 and 16.01.2016. The said ordinance has converted into Act.

3. Mr. Dhorde, the learned senior advocate for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 12084 of 2015, Writ Petition No. 2443 of 2016 and 3615 of 2018 has strenuously made following submissions.

A. By virtue of the amendment, Sub Section (1C) has been inserted in Section 13 of the Act of 1963, by which the State Government may appoint special invitees on every market committee, who shall be expert in the field of agriculture, agricultural processing, agricultural market, law, economics or commerce. The learned senior advocate further submits that, sub Section (1C) to Section 13 of the Act of 1963 is unconstitutional and has been introduced for political considerations viz; accommodating the persons belonging to the ruling party in the State. No guidelines or rules are framed for appointment of the persons as special invitees on the market committees. There is no nexus with the object to be achieved by amending Sec. 13 and, therefore, the same is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The amended provision is unguided and, therefore, is in contravention of the Constitution of India and is ultravires and, therefore, the same needs to be struck down.

B. Intention behind introducing said amendment is only to accommodate the persons belonging to ruling party and, therefore, the purpose which is sought to be achieved would never be achieved.

C. By virtue of the amended provisions, the State Government reserved power to appoint two or four special invitees on market committee along with newly elected body, enabling political interference in the affairs of the market committee and in the functioning of duly elected body. It is only with a view to accommodate their close people, the said provision is incorporated.

D. If, in fact, experts are to be appointed as special invitee, it should have been left to the democratically elected body to appoint them as is the provision applicable to the Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation.

E. The very purpose of keeping the control on appointing or nominating the persons on market committee by the State Government without guidelines and rules speaks volume regarding the arbitrariness on the part of the State Government. Same has been done arbitrarily to keep control on duly elected body of the opponent and to control the affairs of A.P.M.C.

F. The learned senior advocate further submits that, respondents No. 6 to 8 had contested elections of A.P.M.C. They lost the same. They are closely involved with the ruling party and as such are rehabilitated by nominating them as expert members. It is further submitted that, in view of the provision of Sec. 13(1F) of the Act of 1963, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative societies of the District or his representative also is an ex-officio member on the market committee. Therefore, there is no necessity to appoint any person as an expert. Respondents No. 6 to 8 are defeated candidates and, therefore, to appoint them as experts, is only a ploy to rehabilitate them. The exercise of powers is arbitrary. With a clear view to accommodate the political workers of party, initially ordinance was issued. It is further clarified in the letter dated 13.08.2015, except the Government, nobody should appoint the