The discretion to grant extension of the term of office for members of the APMC under Section 14(3) of the Act, 1963 should be exercised judiciously and reasonably, and the right to hold office is not a fundamental right.

JUDGMENT

S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

1. The application filed by petitioners for extension of the term of the board of directors of respondent no.5-Super Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'A.P.M.C. ') is rejected, so also under order dated 07.05.2021 administrator is appointed. The said orders are assailed in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioners claim to be elected directors of respondent no.5-Super Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Aurangabad. The term of the elected directors came to an end on 04.08.2020.

3. The election could not be held prior to 04.08.2020 that is before the expiry of the term of board of directors. The board of directors passed resolution for extension of one year purportedly under Section 14(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulations) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1963') and is amended from time to time. The said resolution was forwarded to the District Deputy Registrar alongwith proposal for extension. Under order dated 23.07.2020, the proposal for extension was refused by respondent no.1 and administrator was appointed. The petitioners assailed the same by filing writ petition before this Court. This Court vide order dated 01.03.2021, the order appointing administrator and rejecting the proposal of petitioners for extension of their term was set aside and respondents-Authorities were directed to take decision afresh. Pursuant thereto, respondent no.2 issued notices for hearing on the proposal for extension of the term. The petitioners had filed detailed say. The respondent no.2 after hearing the parties rejected the proposal of the petitioners for extension of the term of the board of directors and respondent no.4 is appointed as administrator. The said orders are assailed in the present Writ Petition.

4. Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for petitioners submits that, non-holding of the election before the expiry of the term of board of directors was not on account of default of the petitioners, but because of the Covid-19 pandemic situation. The State Government had postponed the election and in way prohibited the conduct of election because of Covid-19 pandemic. In such circumstance the extension ought to have been granted. The learned counsel refers to Section 14(3) of the Act, 1963. The learned counsel further contends that, only because false and frivolous complaint is filed against the board of directors that would not be a ground to deny the extension of the terms. The Act, 1963 does not discriminate grant of extension on the ground that enquiry is pending. The petitioners are not at all held guilty of any charges. The respondents have issued circular extending the term of the board of directors on account of prohibition imposed by the State in holding the election of the A.P.M.C. to all the Board of Directors of A.P.M.C. except where enquiries are pending. The said circular does not stand reason.

5. The learned counsel further submits that, on 10.07.2020 the State Government issued resolution thereby resolving that, due to Covid-19 pandemic the elections are not possible and for six months the elections are postponed and extension was granted to the Managing Committee. Subsequently, fresh policy decision is taken extending the elections further. The learned counsel further submits that, the charges framed against petitioners in an enquiry are frivolous. No allegations and misappropriation appear. Some allegations of irregularities are made, which also are inconsequential and does not lead to the guilt of petitioners.

6. The administrative action of respondent is discriminatory. The equals are treated unequally. The Court will apply the principles of proportionality. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Om Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (2) SCC 386 and another judgment of the Apex Court in a case of U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra and Anr. rep