The resolutions passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee were invalid as they violated procedural rules, confirming that authority cannot be delegated in the presence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Chh. Sambhajinagar, allowing the application filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner is director of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Pathri, Tal. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani. Respondent No.1 is the State through Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the District Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies. Respondent No.4 is the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (in short “A.P.M.C.”). Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 to 15 are the members of Respondent No.4 A.P.M.C. Respondent No.6 is the Secretary of Respondent No.4.

3. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had approached the Divisional Joint Registrar for cancelling the resolution dated 24.01.2025 passed by the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 7 to 15, thereby giving rights to the petitioner to operate the bank account. Further, it was prayed for initiation of an enquiry under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (The act is called as the “said act” for the purpose of convenience) and to take an action under Section 45 of the said Act.

4. The facts in short are that, the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 to 15 are the directors of A.P.M.C. Respondent No.7 was elected as Chairman of the A.P.M.C. He was held disqualified by order dated 14.10.2024 by the District Deputy Registrar. The post of Chairman was thus fallen vacant. Since the post of Chairman was vacant, the charge was handed over to Respondent No.5 being Vice Chairman of the A.P.M.C. under Rule 92(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Sale-Purchase (Development and Regulation) Act, 1967 (“Rules” for short).

5. In the meantime, Respondent No.7 challenged his disqualification by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal came to be allowed by remanding the matter back to the District Deputy Registrar. In view of setting aside the order of disqualification and remand of the matter, Respondent No.7 took back the charge on 16.01.2025. He called for a meeting on 24.01.2025. In the said meeting, only 10 directors were present. The resolution that was under challenge is the resolution whereby authority to operate bank account was taken from the Vice Chairman i.e. Respondent No.5 and was given to the present petitioner. Respondent No.5, therefore filed an application. The challenge is that when Chairman, Secretary and Vice Chairman are functioning, no authority to operate the bank account can be given to any other person. The resolution is thus against Rule 108 of the rules. The another resolution was in respect of charge of the Secretary i.e. Respondent No.6 which came to be handed over to one Mr. B.S. Tingse. To this resolution, the challenge was that, society cannot take any decision in respect of taking of the charge from the Secretary on its own without prior sanction of the higher authorities. It was thus prayed that the resolution be set aside as per Rule 43 of the said act.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that, the Rule 108 is only directory and not mandatory. Respondent No.5 cannot be said to be an aggrieved party as he was absent in a meeting in spite of receiving notice. There are allegations of misappropriation against Respondent No.5 and the enquiry is going on against him. Respondent No.6 had gone on leave from 26.12.2024 till 25.01.2025 and thereafter, on 24.01.2025, he had filed an application for voluntary retirement because of health conditions. The said application was allowed. Respondent No.7- Chairman had therefore directed the Deputy Secretary to issue notice calling for a meeting as per by law No. 44 of the A.P.M.C. In the meeting, resolution came to be passed and charge was handed over to Mr. Tingse. The said resolution is also approved/sanctioned by the Distr