JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed to a Committee constituted in exercise of powers conferred on the Director, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti under section 57 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Act') vide order dated 1.9.92 (Annexure 1 to the petition). By order dated 27.11.92 (Annexure 3-A to the petition) the petitioners appointment was cancelled. The petitioner contends that once he is appointed as member of the committee, he cannot be removed without following the procedure prescribed by Section 55 of the Act for removal of a member of a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti or at least without affording an adequate and proper opportunity of hearing in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The contention is devoid of substance. Firstly, a member of a committee formed under section 57 of the Act cannot be equated with a member duly elected, nominated or coopted to the Market Committee. The first consequence of dissolution of market committee according to section 57 of the Act itself is vacating of office by all members. There is, therefore, no member existing after dissolution of the committee to whom section 55 of the Act could be applied. The petitioner is a member of the Committee appointed under Section 57 of the Act and not a member of Market Committee under section 11 of the Act. Application of section 55 of the Act is, therefore, out of question. There is no question of application of principle of natural justice either, because there is no vested right in a member of the committee to continue against the wishes of the Director. The Act makes it very clear that the officer-in-charge or committee appointed under section 57 of the Act holds office during pleasure of the Director. Sub-section(2) of section 57 of the Act clearly provides that any officer-in-charge or any or all persons appointed on the committee-in-charge under clause(b) of sub- section(l) may at any time be removed by the Director and the Director shall have power to appoint any other person or persons as the case may be in his or their place or places. In view of this clear provision, it cannot be said that opportunity of hearing has to be given before removal of a person appointed to a committee-in-charge constituted under section 57 of the Act. In view of this clear provision, it cannot be said that opportunity of hearing has to be given before removal of a person appointed to a committee-in-charge constituted under section 57 of the Act. The petitioner having accepted the appointment with eyes wide open to the provision under section 57(2) of the Act, cannot be heard to say that he is entitled to hearing before removal. Petition dismissed.