SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Guj) 815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
C.L. Soni, J.
Jitendrasinh Manjisinh Vaghela and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat and others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 21267 of 2015
Decided on : 4-1-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:V.C. Vaghela for Anil H. Patel, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Neeraj Ashar, Asstt Govt Pleader, Hardik Raval, Advocate.

Important Point – Term of office of members of Market Committee shall be co-extensive with terms of Market Committee.

Headnote:Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 – Section 11(5)(a) – Appointment of Administrator – Challenge as to – When term of office of Market Committee would expire in absence of any order of extension made by State Government and such term when shall be deemed to have extended only till appointment of Administrator and when law mandates by virtue of Section 11(5)(a) of the Act to appoint Administrator, it cannot be said that impugned order for appointment of Administrator is in anyway illegal – Simply because respondent-newly added party had taken some proceedings and there was stay from Supreme Court not to hold election and simply because now there is a direction by High Court to take immediate step for holding of election of Market Committee, it cannot be said that there is malafide exercise of powers in passing impugned order.

       Result – Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

C.L. Soni, J. (Oral) - By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who were elected members of the respondent No.4 Market Committee, have challenged the order dated 28.12.2015 passed by respondent No.1 appointing the Administrator for respondent No.4 Market Committee in exercise of the powers under Section 11(5)(a) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 (‘the Act’).

2. As per the case of the petitioners, term of the Market Committee had expired on 8.8.2012 and election program was declared to hold election of the Market Committee, however subsequently, such election program was cancelled by the respondent No.2. Then, new election program was declared. However, since the petition was filed against publication of the final voter list, direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 11.4.2012 in Special Civil Application No.396 of 2012 to declare election program from the stage of publication of the final voter list after the exercise in connection with finalisation of voter list was completed, as directed by the Court, by the Director. This order was challenged by the newly added party-respondent No.5 before Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. (Civil) No.8771 of 2012, wherein stay against holding of the election was granted but, then by order dated 15.5.2015, the SLP was permitted to be withdrawn and thereafter, a petition was moved by the petitioners before this Court to direct the concerned authority to hold election and not to appoint the Administrator till election is held. In such petition, the direction was issued to take immediate steps for holding election.

3. The petitioners have alleged in the petition that all throughout, holding of election was stalled by respondent No.5 and the petitioners are not responsible for delay in holding the election and now, when there is a direction to hold election, with malafide intention, just to throw the present body out of the office, the impugned order appointing the Administrator is passed.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Vaghela for the petitioners submitted that earlier when the petition was filed seeking direction to hold election and challenging appointment of the Administrator, a statement was made through affidavit-in-reply that appointment of the Administrator shall be withdrawn and accordingly, by order dated 2.4.2012, appointment of the Administrator was cancelled. Mr. Vaghela submitted that thereafter, on account of the stay granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court against holding of the election, the election could not be held, for which the petitioners were not responsible and therefore, the petitioner continued to hold the office of the Market Committee. Mr. Vaghela submitted that as per the provisions of Section 11(4)(aa) of the Act, the State Government is to first resort to grant extension of the term of the Market Committee for a period of one year and only thereafter, powers for appointment of Administrator could be exercised. Mr. Vaghela submitted that such power is not exercised by the State Government before issuing the impugned order and the petitioners continuing in the office is on account of not holding of the election and not by virtue of any extension order passed by the State Government and therefore, it is not open to the State Government to straightway resort to exercise of the powers under Section 11(5)(a) of the Act. Mr. Vaghela submitted that as per the interim direction issued by this Court in the petition, being Special Civil Application No.21167 of 2015, filed by the petitioners, the election of respondent No.4 Market Committee is required to be held at the earliest and election program for such purpose is required to be placed before this Court on the proceedings of that petition on or before 8.1.2016, and in view of such interim direction issued by this Court, since the election is required to be held in near future, the State Government ought not to have exercised the powers for a









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top