ORDER

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. - Vires of G.O.Rt. No. 158, Agriculture & Cooperation (MKT. 1) Department dated 12.01.2024 and the consequent proceedings No. GM-S-III/260303/2020, dated 12.01.2024 issued by the Director of Agriculture Marketing, Hyderabad is questioned in this Writ Petition.

2. Vide said G.O., the Government of Telangana withdrew its pleasure from the Members of Agriculture Market Committee, Jangoan, Jangoan District including Chairman and Vice-Chairman with immediate effect; consequently, the tenure of Members of Agricultural Market Committee, Jangaon including Chairman and Vice-Chairman stands curtailed and they will cease to hold the posts as such with immediate effect. Further, by proceedings dated 12.01.2024, the Director of Agricultural Marketing Committee - 3rd respondent appointed the Regional Deputy Director of Marketing, Warangal as Person-in-charge, Agricultural Market Committee, Jangaon, to manage day-to-day affairs of the Committee until the Market Committee is reconstituted.

3. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is Chairman, the 2nd petitioner is Vice-Chairman and other petitioners are members of the Committee constituted by G.O. Rt No. 117, Agriculture and Cooperation (MKT-1) Department, dated 14.03.2023. Petitioners, being non-political, were appointed on merit and have discharged their duties diligently. The Committee, post its inception, ensured timely payments to farmers and performed its duties without any complaints.

4. Though no counter affidavit is filed, as the issue involved is purely legal, this Court proceeds with the case.

5. Sri B. Nalini Kumar, learned Senior Counsel argued on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner Sri Dasharatha. He submits that the impugned G.O. is arbitrary and was issued in mala fide exercise of power under Section 5(11) of the Telangana (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 2014 (for short, 'the Act') and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Reference is made to the recent change in government after elections on 30.11.2023, leading to issuance of the impugned G.O. and proceedings, allegedly aimed at arbitrarily curtailing petitioners' tenure. Learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in M. Thirupathi Rao v. The State of Telangana, 2015 (1) ALT 589, which invalidated Clause 3 of Telangana Ordinance No. 1 of 2014 by which Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members of every Market Committee shall cease to hold office, hence, applying the said ratio, the impugned G.O. and the proceeding are liable to be set aside. It is submitted that Section 5(11) of the Act provides that Members of the Committee including Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall hold office during the pleasure of the government, the said pleasure is not absolute, cannot be exercised whimsically without reasons, arbitrarily or mala fide. In this case, Chairman, Vice-Chairman and members are nominated posts and they are pleasure posts, still the government is under obligation to follow the principles of natural justice. He relied, in this regard, on the judgment of the High Court of Maharastra in Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra, 2022(4) Mh.L.J and that of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Dasari Raja Master v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2021) 4 ALD 196, wherein it has been held that withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at whim and fancy of authority but can only be for valid reasons. According to learned counsel, in democracy, government is governed by rule of law; no government or authority has right to do what it pleases and there is nothing like unfettered discretion.

It is submitted that withdrawal of pleasure should not be a tool for unfettered discretion, aimed at altering committee composition based on political allegiance. The impugned G.O. and proceedings, it is argued, impose civil consequences on petitioners without affording them an opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. Learned counsel highlighted the need to read principles of natural justice