JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) SHRI Swami Saran, counsel for non-petitioners Nos. 3 and 5 has forcefully argued that there is no merit in petitioners grievance because the irregularity complained has ben cured Is that so? Let us see. ( 2. ) THE petitioner is a member of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jora By Annexure p/10, which is resolution passed by the Samiti, his membership has been terminated in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 (xi) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj mandi (Adhisuchana Prakashan Riti, Bharasadhak Samiti Tatha Mandi Samiti gathan) Niyam, 1974, for short rules. The question is, could that be done? Shri lahoti vehemently protests against the illegality committed by the Samiti, relying on the provisions of section 61 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, for short, the Act. Let us read the concerned resolution No. 1 (A ). It appears that for certain journeys made by the petitioner, he was given some advance by the Samiti and he submitted T. A. bills for the same. It is stated therein that the notice dated 4-2-1984 was served on the petitioner, asking him to refund the amount, but he failed to comply therewith. There was a default in that regard and as such, the membership of the petitioner was terminated ( 3. ) WE extract the provisions of the aforesaid Rule 7 as also section 55 (1) and section 61 (2) of the Act, cited at the Bar. "7. Disqualification for membership. No person shall be eligible for being elected as a member of the market committee if- (xi) he has been held responsible by the market committee for default in payment of dues to the market committee; or "55. "7. Disqualification for membership. No person shall be eligible for being elected as a member of the market committee if- (xi) he has been held responsible by the market committee for default in payment of dues to the market committee; or "55. Removal of member, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of market committee.- (1) The Director may on its own motion or on a resolution passed by a majority of two-third of the members constituting the market committee for the (time) being remove any member of the market committee for misconduct or neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty and on such removal he shall not be re-elected or re-nominated as a member of the market committee for a period of six years from the date of such removal: provided that no order of such removal shall be passed unless such member has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be passed" "61. Recovery of sum due to market committee- (2) If any question arises whether a sum is due under sub-section (1) it shall be referred to the Director and he shall after making such enquiry as he deems fit and after giving to the person from whom the sum is alleged to be due an opportunity of being heard, decide the question and his decision shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. " (Emphasis added) ( 4. ) THE first question that arises is the question, evidently, of justification of the petitioners refusal to refund the amount of travelling allowance paid to him. Because the question of "default" will arise only when it can be said that there were "dues" payable by the petitioner to the Market Samiti. Shri Swami Saran has drawn our attention to the return of non-petitioners 1, 2 and 5, wherein reference is made to certain audit objections. It is submitted that payment by the Samiti of travelling allowance to the petitioner was objected by the Auditor and, therefore, the payment made had become refundable. We are not prepared to accept this construction, which is wholly unreasonable and is not supported by the object of the provision. It is submitted that payment by the Samiti of travelling allowance to the petitioner was objected by the Auditor and, therefore, the payment made had become refundable. We are not prepared to accept this construction, which is wholly unreasonable and is not supported by the object of the provision. We find ample support for the view taken by us from the language of section 61 (2), extracted above, wherein the duty of determining "whether a sum is due" in respect of the matters mentioned in sub-section (1) is statutorily vested on the Director. In sub-section (1), it is explicitly contemplated that any "sum due" to the Market Committee would include payment due "on account of any charge, cost, expenses, fees, rent or any other account under the provisions of the Act". We entertain no doubt, therefore, that the exhaustively defined term "sum due" in sub-section (1) of section 61 must negate the contention pressed by Shri Swami Saran as well as by Shri Agarwal, appearing for non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. Disqualification is a serious matter affecting the democratic right of the member to participate in the activities of the Samiti and before this right could be extinguished unilaterally by the Samiti, a safeguard is made available under the Act, which is to be read in section 61 (2) which vests the authority not in the Samiti, but in the Director, to determine the question as to whether any sum was "due" to the Samiti. The question of default will come only when such a determination has taken place; not before that. There was a statutory duty oh the samiti to refer the "question" which arose as a result of the findings made by the auditor. But, the Samiti failed to do so and arrogated to itself the powers and jurisdiction of the Director, which is not permissible. ( 5. ) IN our opinion, reliance on section 55 (1) by Shri Swami Saran is totally of no avail because it does not deal with the question of "disqualification", but with the question of "removal", which has a different object and a diffferent complexion. This appers very clear from the object of the provision which is punitive and punishes any member for any "misconduct or neglector incapacity to perform any duty" and not for any other matter. This appers very clear from the object of the provision which is punitive and punishes any member for any "misconduct or neglector incapacity to perform any duty" and not for any other matter. The provisions of section 55 are not at all attracted in this case, wherein there is no material to suggest at all any case of "misconduct" or "neglect" or even of "incapacity to perform any duty" by the present petitioner. When the amount was paid to him by the Samiti for the journeys, it was done not on any misrepresentation, but on the clear and clean satisfaction of the Committee itself that such journeys had to be undertaken by the petitioner in the interest of the Samiti and, therefore, the travelling allowance for the journeys had to be paid to him and payment was accordingly made. The audit objections raised what we would call, a dispute or, as the Legislature has envisaged, "the question" within the meaning of the term used in section 61 (2) of the Act. ( 6. ) ANNEXURE P/13 is the order by the Director on an appeal preferred by the petitioner. Shri Swami Sarans submission is that dismissal of the appeal had cured the irregularity. We refuse to agree with him. Failure of a jurisdictional duty or non-compliance with the jurisdictional requirement cannot, in our opinion, be termed as an irregularity, which can be cured in any proceedings in any stage and in any manner. When the Director heard the appeal, he was not exercising his power under sections 61 (2) and 55 (1) of the Act, but under Rule 8 (5) of the Rules. It is true that an appeal lay to him against a resolution by the Samiti by which membership of the petitioner was terminated, but the director failed to address himself to the question that the action of the Samiti was wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as it had taken action under Rule 7 (xi) without resorting to the provision of section 61 (2) of the Act. That being the position, the order passed by the Director as per Annexure P/13 cannot be said either to cure the irregularity, which indeed, it was not, or even amount to a proper disposal of the appeal. His order is also illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed as is the resolution Annexure P/10. ( 7. That being the position, the order passed by the Director as per Annexure P/13 cannot be said either to cure the irregularity, which indeed, it was not, or even amount to a proper disposal of the appeal. His order is also illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed as is the resolution Annexure P/10. ( 7. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this petition must be, and is, allowed We hold the action taken by the Samiti vide Annexure P/10 and confirmed by Annexure P/13, to be illegal and void and accordingly the resolution and the said order are quashed ( 8. ) IN the result, the petition succeeds, but there shall be no order as to costs. Outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.