ORDER :

1. The prayers in the petition read as under:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2019 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A hereto) and allow the petitioners to function as the committee member of the APMC, Patan;”

2. The petitioners, who are elected members of the respondent no.3 – Market Committee are before this Court challenging the validity and propriety of the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the State in exercise of powers under Section 46 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (‘the Act’ for short). By the impugned order, the State in exercise of powers under Section 46 of the Act has superseded the respondent no.3-Market Committee and appointed an administrator.

3. The facts giving rise to the petition are as under:

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the Market Committee viz. the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Patan, was constituted under Section 11 of the Act. Since there was no elected body for about 10 years, the management was continued through an Administrator. After several litigations, the election of the Market Committee was held and on 13.10.2017, the election was declared and an elected body started working with effect from 25.10.2017.

3.2 The petitioners’ case is that the present 14 elected directors since have no affiliation with the party in power and succeeded in the election and in effective functioning of the Committee took several decisions such as recovery of outstanding dues from one Kantilal Raghuram Thakkar, eviction and action of pulling down illegal constructions which was not to the liking of the President of the Association who was related to the President of the Patan Municipality, renovation of canteen premises, demolition of illegal constructions of one Babaldas Patel, recovery of Market Cess etc. as extensively enumerated in para 3.4(i) to (xi), the petitioners’ actions were not appreciated.

3.3 The disgruntled elements approached the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister respectively by filing complaints on 02.04.2019 requesting them to look into the administration of the respondent no.3 – Committee and supersede it.

3.4 It is the case of the petitioners that the Deputy Director of APMC/District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, carried out the preliminary inquiry and submitted a report on 28.05.2019 to the Director. On the basis of such report, proceedings under Section 44 of the Act were initiated. Since the report was initially not supplied to the petitioners, a copy thereof was subsequently supplied and a notice dated 07.06.2019 was issued under Section 44 of the Act to the Committee. To such notice, the petitioners filed a reply and once again by a letter dated 05.07.2019, certain additional points were sought to be included for the purposes of an inquiry under Section 44 of the Act. When the Committee applied for time, it was adjourned giving only short adjournment and the petitioners therefore filed replies on 10.07.2019 and 24.07.2019. It is the case of the petitioners that Joint Registrar (Audit), ignoring the reply, submitted a report on 29.07.2019 and on the same date the Registrar forwarded the report with his opinion to the Director of APMC.

3.5 The respondent no.2 – Director of APMC forwarded the report to the respondent no. 1 - State, on the basis of which the respondent-State issued a show cause notice dated 06.08.2019, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the Market Committee should not be superseded and an administrator be appointed. The show cause notice had six principal allegations.

(i) Illegality in purchase of tarpaulin;

(ii) Illegality in tender process in context of construction/renovation of canteen, acquisition of kitchen equipments, storm water drainage line works, electrical a