1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Neeraj Ashar waives service of Rule for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Though notice was served to the Market Committee-respondent No.4, nobody appeared and since it is a formal party, Rule was not issued to it. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the petition was taken up for final disposal.

2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are elected members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Harij-respondent No.4, have challenged the order dated 10.9.2013 passed by respondent No.1-State of Gujarat through its Joint Secretary (Appeal), Agricultural and Co-operation Department, under Section 46 of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short) removing the office bearers of the Market Committee-the petitioners and appointing the District Registrar, Patan as Administrator of the Market Committee.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the election of the Market Committee was held on 24.3.2011 and they were elected in such election for which a notification under Rule 27 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (‘the Rules’ for short) was issued. It is alleged in the petition that one Shri Samirbhai Bhupendrabhai Thakkar lost in the said election and he as also one Shri Karamsibhai Mevabhai had preferred election petitions, being Appeal Nos.110 of 2011 and 111 of 2011 and the said appeals were allowed and the election of the petitioners was set aside. Such orders passed in the appeals were challenged by the petitioners before this Court and this Court set aside the orders passed in appeals by observing that the election of the returned candidates could not have been set aside without recording the reasons required for setting aside the election. The petitioners have further alleged that the State authorities then initiated inquiry under Section 44 of the Act at the behest of said Samirbhai and the District Registrar without considering the stand of the Market Committee gave one sided report, based on which, the Director-respondent No.2 sent proposal dated 16.8.2012 for initiating proceedings under Section 46 of the Act.

4. The petitioners have averred that show cause notice under Section 46 of the Act was issued to them, to which the petitioners clarified each and every grounds stated in the show cause notice. However, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order on frivolous and baseless grounds.

5. The petition is opposed by affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 stating that the petitioners being elected members of the Market Committee have miserably failed in protecting the financial interest of the Market Committee and thereby caused losses to the Market Committee and therefore, the impugned action taken vide order dated 10.9.2013 is just and proper.

6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties.

7. Learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is not bonafide exercise of the powers under Section 46 of the Act. Mr. Joshi submitted that the allegations of the show cause notice which are taken as grounds for passing the impugned order do not satisfy the prerequisites to reach an opinion that the Market Committee was either not competent to perform or persistently make default in performing the duties imposed on it under the Act or abuses its power. Mr. Joshi submitted that the action of respondent No.1 in resorting to proceedings under Section 46 of the Act is not independent but is under the political pressure at the instance of Shri Samirbhai who lost in general election of the Market Committee. Mr. Joshi submitted that the grounds stated in the impugned order are otherwise not germane to taking of action under Section 46 of the Act against the petitioners.

7.1. Learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that the first ground as regards making of cons