Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.D. DHANUKA, S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
Laxmikant S/o Mahadeorao Lad - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No.3727 of 2022, Civil Application No.4146 of 2022
Decided on : 07-04-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. A. R. Kale, Adv
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Section 45(1), 40, 45(2)(a), 15-A - Committee - District Deputy Registrar - Whether charge is handed over by erstwhile Managing Committee to Administrator or not – Held, It is case of respondent no.3-Administrator that, he has taken charge from Secretary of erstwhile Committee of respondent no.4 - On other hand, it is case of petitioner that, even if, Administrator was appointed rightly, Administrator ought to have called upon erstwhile Committee to hand over charge - Since learned counsel for petitioner on instructions states that, charge will be handed over to Administrator by his client on behalf of himself and all Committee members of erstwhile Committee of respondent no.4, Court direct respondent no.3-Administrator to remain present in office of respondent no.4 Committee with documents which were handed over by Secretary of respondent no.4 – Court direct Committee members of erstwhile Committee of respondent no.4 through petitioner herein to collect those documents from Administrator and at same time hand over those documents and charge to Administrator on same day - It is made clear that, if Administrator hands over those documents collected from Secretary of respondent no.4 to petitioner herein, petitioner for himself and on behalf of other Committee members, on appointed date, shall hand over documents and charge to Administrator as directed in earlier paragraph of order immediately - Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. D. Dhanuka, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Mr. Kale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 waives notice. No reliefs are sought against respondent no.4 in this petition.
3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside order dated 21.02.2022 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1963’).
4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the Committee consists of 18 members of respondent no.4 was elected. On 28.08.2017 two elected Directors made a complaint to respondent no.2-District Deputy Registrar against newly elected Managing Committee and requested to supersede the Managing Committee. The petitioner submitted explanation on the said complaint made by two elected Directors. It is the case of the petitioner that, District Deputy Registrar was satisfied with the said explanation and did not take any action.
5. The District Deputy Registrar issued a notice under Section 40 of the Act, 1963 on 10.10.2019 seeking explanation from the said Committee members. The Committee members filed their explanation in response to the said notice on 17.08.2021. Around 21.02.2022 the District Deputy Registrar passed an order thereby dissolving the existing Managing Committee headed by the petitioner and appointed Administrator on respondent no.4. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 28.02.2022, Administrator appointed by the State Government on 21.02.2022 itself served the said order on the Secretary of respondent no.4 and immediately took custody of the records of respondent no.4-APMC saying that he had taken over the charge.
6. On 14.03.2022 the petitioner had filed this Writ Petition for various reliefs.
7. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to some of the Exhibits annexed to the petition and would submit that, on the basis of the allegations in the complaint making stale allegations against the previous Committee by one of the political leader, the State Government passed an order superseding entire Committee of respondent no.4. Next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the tenure of the said Committee of respondent no.4 had expired at the same time, the Administrator could not have taken the so called charge from the Secretary of the said Committee. He submits that, Administrator ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act, 1963 for taking charge and could not have collected papers/records from the Secretary of the said Committee. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Babasaheb Apparao Akat and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2010 (2) Bom. C.R. 578 and more particularly paragraph nos.6 and 9.
8. It is submitted that, the apprehension of the petitioner is that, since the State Government has superseded the Market Committee under Section 45(1) of the Act, 1963, the member of the erstwhile Committee would be deliberately disqualified and would be made ineligible to be re-elected, reappointed, re-nominated, co-opted or re-co-opted as a member of the Committee till the expiry of the period of six years from the date of order of their removal.
9. Mr. Kale, learned A.G.P. for the State on the other hand submits that, even if, the entire Committee is superseded under Section 45(1) of the Act, 1963, the Committee members would not be disqualified under Section 45(2)(a) of the Act, 1963. He submits that, only if an individual member of the Committee would have removed under Section 45(1) of the Act, 1963, only such member would have disqualified under Section 45(2)(a) and not entire Committee.
10. In so far as the issue raised by the learned counsel for the p
