Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1070 (PAT)

Raj Nandan Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-11-29

S.K.KATRIAR

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash letter no. 1478, dt. 15.3.2001 (Annexure 4), issued under the signature of the Director, Marketing (Election), Bihar State Agriculture Produce Marketing Board (respondent no. 6) whereby he has held that the period of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Samastipur, (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) shall commence in terms of section 9(5) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 30.9.97, overruling the petitioners contention that the same ought to commence on 15.7.98. 2. Election to the Committee took place on 1.12.96 in terms of Section 9(5) of the Act.The petitioner was also elected a member of the Committee and has thereafter been elected as the Vice Chairman. The list of elected members was notified in the official gazette in terms of Section 13 of the Act on 30.9.97 (Annexure 1). A corrigendum was issued publishing in the Gazette dt. 15.7.98 (Annexure 2) making two corrections in the said gazette notification dt. 30.9.97 (Annexure 2). By the corrigendum description of two members occurring in the notification marked Annexure 1 was corrected. Details of the correction will be indicated at an appropriate stage. 3. It appears that the petitioner represented before respondent no. 6 that term of the Committee should commence on 15.9.98, and not on 30.9.97 because of absence of two members. The contention has been rejected by the impugned order, wherein it has been held that the period contemplated by Section 9(5) shall commence on 30.9.97. Hence the writ petition. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Bihar & Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 (hereinafter referred to as 1917 Act) the notification dt. 15.7.98 (Annexure 2) cannot operate retrospectively. It has to operate prospectively. If that be the position, in his submission, the Committee shall be deemed to have been validly constituted on 15.7.98. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 116 (Para-16) (Kazi Lhendup Dorji V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation), as well as the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, reported in AIR 1977 Delhi 184 (Mohd. Swallehin & Ors. V/s. Lieutenant Governor, Delhi & Ors.). 5. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 116 (Para-16) (Kazi Lhendup Dorji V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation), as well as the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, reported in AIR 1977 Delhi 184 (Mohd. Swallehin & Ors. V/s. Lieutenant Governor, Delhi & Ors.). 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order has correctly applied the provisions of Section 9(5) read with Section 13 of the Act to the present case. He further submits that names of the two persons which figure in the corrigendum did figure in the notification dt. 30.9.97 (Annexure 1), though inaccurately on account of typographical error. The corrigendum only sets right the typographical errors in description of the two members. He next submits that in that view of the matter and also for other reasons, the provision of Section 24 of the 1917 Act is (sic) present case. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this writ petition is fit to be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents is right in his submission that the notification dt. 30.9.97 (Annexure 1), as is manifest from the preamble, was the only notification in terms of Section 13 of the Act. The later one published on 15.7.98 (Annexure 2) was not under the provision of Section 13 of the Act and was in fact a Shuddhi Patra. Learned counsel for the respondents is further right in his submission that the names of the two persons occurring in Annexure 2 did figure in the notification dt. 30.9.97 (Annexure 1) and the necessity for issuing the corrigendum (Annexure 2) arose because of mere typographical errors in the form. In that view of the matter, there is no need to discuss the other contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.