The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the competence of the officer issuing a show-cause-notice under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.

S.A. BOBDE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the show-cause-notice dated 2.6.2010, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the post of Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Malkapur.

3. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the notice is not issued by a competent authority since it is issued by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and not by the District Deputy Registrar as required by Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is an undisputed position that the impugned notice is issued by an 'in-charge' District Deputy Registrar.

4. The contention is that though the notice is purported to have been issued by the District Deputy Registrar who is the competent authority, it is invalid. Since it is signed by an Assistant Registrar who is holding the charge of the post of the Deputy Registrar. Section 45 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act reads thus.

“45 (1). If, in the opinion of the State Government, a Market Committee or any member thereof, is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in performing the duties imposed on it or him by or under this Act, or abuses its or his powers or wilfully disregards any instructions issued by the State Government or any officer duly authorised by it in this behalf arising out of audit of accounts of the Market Committee or inspection of the office and work thereof, the State Government may, after giving the Committee or member, as the case may be, an opportunity of rendering an explanation, by an order in writing, with reasons therefor, supersede such Market Committee, or remove the member, as the case may be; and where a member is removed, the State Government shall appoint any person as a member of such Committee in his place for the remainder of his term of office :

Provided that, no Market Committee shall be superseded without the State Marketing Board referred to in section 44 being previously consulted.”

5. The above provision clearly contemplates that a member of the Market Committee, who inter alia wilfully disregards any instructions of the State Government or any officer duly authorized by it may be removed by the State Government. The impugned notice is issued to the petitioner for the alleged disobedience of the order of status quo made by the Director of Marketing relating to construction activity of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee. We are at this juncture not concerned with the fact whether the petitioner has in fact disobeyed any instruction, since that is a matter that may require a decision on merits, after the petitioner has filed the reply before the competent authority.

6. Now, the power to remove a member conferred by Section 45 of the Act conferred on the State Government is undisputedly conferred on the District Deputy Registrar, under a general order dated 5.9.1981 issued under Section 58 of the Act. Section 2 (f-1a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act defines 'District Deputy Registrar' as follows.

“2 (f-1a) “District Deputy Registrar” means the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.”

7. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner since the person who has signed the notice is in fact not appointed as a District Deputy Registrar but is in fact appointed as a Assistant Registrar under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, he has no authority to issue show-cause-notice. The argument tantamounts to contending that an Assistant Registrar cannot hold charge of the post of a Deputy Registrar because the A.P.M.C. Act defines District Deputy R