Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1374 (MP)

Ashok Singh v. State of M. P.

2006-12-05

A.K.GOHIL, P.K.JAISWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT Gohil, J. -- 1. This writ appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 against the judgment and order dated 30.8.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2530/06. 2. The brief facts leading to tiling of this appeal are that the petitioner appellant was elected as President of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mau, district Bhind. A criminal case was registered against him for committing offence under sections 395 of IPC read with section 136 of the Representation of the People Act, which was decided by the judgment dated 27.2.2006 rendered in Sessions Trials No.IS and 18 of 2000, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, whereby the appellant was convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to ten years' RI and six months RI respectively. Thereafter, on 14.4.2006 the order (Annexure P-l) was passed by the Collector, Bhind, that he ceased to hold office of President and his office has fallen vacant as the appellant becomes disqualified for being an office bearer and President of Mandi Samiti u/s IIB (3) of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam of 1972") read with section 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Adhiniyam 1993") and therefore, under section 36(2) of the said Adhiniyam 1993, the appellant ceased to be an office bearer and his office became vacant and therefore by the impugned order dated 14.4.2006 (Annexure P-l), the Collector, Bhind, directed the Vice-President to perform. the functions of the Chairman till new Chairman is duly elected. Thus, the appellant challenged the aforesaid order of the Collector, Bhind, in Writ Petition No.2530/06. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 30.8.2006 dismissed the said writ petition of the petitioner, on the following grounds : "(i) in view of the fact that the petitioner is convicted and acquired disqualification and his office has fallen vacant due to casual vacancy, therefore, the Collector has issued an order under section IIB(3) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and directed the Vice President to function as President and in such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order to call for interference. (ii) Moreover even assuming that impugned order is illegal, this Court is exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Moreover even assuming that impugned order is illegal, this Court is exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution for issuance writ is purely a discretionary and it is equitable power. It is settled position of law that a writ proceedings are neither statutory remedy nor continuation of original proceeding, but it is only an extraordinary discretionary power and no one is entitled to claim order under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India as a matter of course. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary and can be exercised only in a case where injustice is caused to the petitioner and the Court should not exercise the power to set aside the order which wil1 result in restoration of illegal situation. The petitioner who otherwise is disqualified from holding cannot be permitted to function as Chairman of the Samiti as that will amount to exercise the powers to permit a person who has disqualified from holding the post in an office. In such circumstances, this petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed." 3. Against the said dismissal order, the petitioner has filed the present writ appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that in this appeal, the only legal question is that under sub-section (3) of section 11B of the Adhiniyam 1972, for the purposes of disqualification, the provision of section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 has been made applicable and according to which the Collector is not empowered to issue any such order. In nutshell, the appellant has challenged the authority of the Collector under section 11 B of the Adhiniyam, 1972 read with section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Collector is illegal and without jurisdiction. Alternatively it is submitted that under section 55 of the said Adhiniyam, 1972 the Managing Director only can pass an order as the question of disqualification is covered under the word "incapacity" to perform his duty. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Collector is illegal and without jurisdiction. Alternatively it is submitted that under section 55 of the said Adhiniyam, 1972 the Managing Director only can pass an order as the question of disqualification is covered under the word "incapacity" to perform his duty. But, certainly, the Collector has no power either to communicate disqualification or to direct the Vice-Chairman to hold the office or to communicate that the appellant shall cease to be an office bearer and his office shall become vacant. 5. In reply, Shri S.B. Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State supported the impugned order and submitted that under sub-section (6) of section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the Collector has been vested with the power to appoint any person as Vice-Chairman after the vacancy in the office of the Chairman. Though, in this case, the office of the Vice-Chairman is not vacant but certainly the Collector is empowered to exercise powers in such contingencies, as has been provided under sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. Therefore, the order passed by the Collector is neither illegal nor without jurisdiction and since the appellant is found to be disqualified to perform his duty as office-bearer, the action taken by the Collector is justified. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 7. There is no dispute that the appellant is an elected representative of agriculturist in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Mau, district Bhind and he was also holding the office of Chairman of the aforesaid Mandi Samiti. It is also not in dispute that in a criminal case registered against him, he was found guilty of the offence under section 395 of IPC as well as section 136 of the Representatives of People Act and accordingly he has been convicted and sentenced to ten years RI and six months RI, respectively, in ST Nos.15 and 18 of 2000. It is further not disputed that his conviction in appeal has not been stayed/suspended. The crucial question before us for consideration is as to whether the Collector has any power to act in such an exigency. Firstly, we would like to refer certain provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 so also of Adhiniyam, 1993, which are relevant for resolving the controversy. 8. The crucial question before us for consideration is as to whether the Collector has any power to act in such an exigency. Firstly, we would like to refer certain provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 so also of Adhiniyam, 1993, which are relevant for resolving the controversy. 8. First of all, the relevant provisions of Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 are taken up for consideration and reproduced as under: "11B. Qualification to vote and to be a representative of agriculturists – (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) A person shall be disqualified for being a representative of agriculturist if he is disqualified for being an office bearer of a Panchayat under section 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 13. First meeting, terms of office, resignation by Chairman, ViceChairman or member and vacancy in their office -- (1) The first meeting of the Market Committee shall be convened by the Collector within one month from the date of publication of result of election of Chairman and members in the official Gazette. (2) The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and members of the Market Committee shall hold office for a period of five years from the date of first meeting of the Market Committee: Provided that if on the expiry of the term of the Market Committee, a new Market Committee is not constituted the Market Committee shall be deemed to have been dissolved and in such an event the provisions of section 57 shall apply. (3) The Chairman, Vice-Chairman, or a member may resign his office at any time in writing addressed to the Collector and such resignation shall be effective from the date of its acceptance by the Collector. (3) The Chairman, Vice-Chairman, or a member may resign his office at any time in writing addressed to the Collector and such resignation shall be effective from the date of its acceptance by the Collector. (4) Any person who is elected as a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat, Panchayat or Cooperative Society is elected as Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of the Market Committee or vice versa may, by notice in writing signed by him and delivered to the [Collector] within thirty days from the date, or the later of the dates, on which he is elected, intimate in which of the office he wishes to serve, and thereupon, his seat in the body in which he does not wish to serve shall become vacant and in default of such intimation within the aforesaid period, his seat in the Market Committee shall, at the expiration of that period, become vacant. (5) In the event of death, resignation, or removal of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or a member before the expiry of his term or on the occurrence of a vacancy under sub-section (4), or otherwise, a casual vacancy shall be deemed to have occurred in such office and such vacancy shall be filled within six months by election in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules and a person so elected or nominated shall hold office for the unexpired portion of the term of his predecessor. Provided that if the remaining term of the office is less than six months, such vacancy shall not be filled in. (6) In the event of occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman by reason of his death, resignation or removal or otherwise the Vice-Chairman and if the office of the Vice-Chairman is also vacant then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, such member of the Market Committee who is elected under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 11, as the Collector may appoint shall exercise powers and perform the functions of the Chairman till the Chairman is duly elected. 55. 55. Removal of member, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of market committee -- (1) The Managing Director may on his 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. (2) The Managing Director may remove any Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a market committee from his office, for misconduct, or neglect of or incapacity to perform his duty or for being persistently remiss in the discharge of his duties and on such removal the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, shall not be eligible for re-election as Chairman or Vice-Chairman during the remainder of his term of office as member of market committee: Provided that no order of removal shall be passed unless the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be passed. (3) The State Government may suspend any member or Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a market committee, who has been served with the notice under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, and against whom any complaints have been received or who commits irregularities after the service of such notice, for period from the date of receipt of complaint or the date of noticing of irregularities by the Managing Director till the final decision is taken in his case." 9. The relevant provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which are applicable to this case are also being reproduced as under: "36. Disqualification for being office bearer of Panchayat – (1) No person shall be eligible to be an office-bearer of Panchayat who – (a) has, either before or after the commencement of this Act, been convicted. The relevant provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which are applicable to this case are also being reproduced as under: "36. Disqualification for being office bearer of Panchayat – (1) No person shall be eligible to be an office-bearer of Panchayat who – (a) has, either before or after the commencement of this Act, been convicted. (i) of an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (No.22 of 1955) or under any law in connection with the use, consumption or sale of narcotics or any law corresponding thereto in force in any part of the State, unless a period of five years or such lesser period as the State Government may allow in any particular case has elapsed since his conviction; or (ii) of any other offence and had been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months, unless a period of five years or such less period as the State Government may allow in any particular case has. elapsed since his release; or (b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court; or (c) is an applicant to the adjudged an insolvent or is an undischarged insolvent; or [(ca) even after one year of being elected, does not have flush latrine in his residential premises; or (cb) has not paid all the dues which are recoverable by Panchayat and has not filed with nomination paper, the declaration of such intention that no money is due to be paid by him on any account payable to the Panchayat; or (cc) has encroached upon any land or buildings of the Panchayat and Government; or] (d) hold an office of profit under any Panchayat or is in the service of any other local authority or cooperative society or the State Government or Central Government or any Public Sector Undertaking under the control of the Central Government or the State Government: Provided that no person shall be deemed to have incurred disqualification under this clause by reason of being appointed as a Patel under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959); or (e) has been dismissed from the service of the State Government or Central Government, or a Panchayat, or any other local authority, or a cooperative society, or any public sector undertakings under the control of the Central Government or the State Government for corruption or for disloyalty; or (f) has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract with, by or on behalf of the Panchayat, while owning such share or interest: Provided that a person shall not be deemed to have incurred disqualification under clause (f) by reason of his – (i) having share in any joint stock company or a share or interest in any association registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (N 0.44 of 1973) or in any cooperative society which shall contract with or be employed by or on behalf of the Panchayat; or (ii) having share or interest in any newspaper in which any advertisement relating to the affairs of the Panchayat is inserted; or (iii) holding a debenture or being otherwise concerned in any loan raised by or on behalf of the Panchayat;] (g) is employed as paid legal practitioner on behalf of the Panchayat; or (h) is suffering from a variety of leprosy which is infectious; or (i) has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a Foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a Foreign State; or (j) has been disqualified under the Act repealed by section 130 during the period of five years preceding the date of filing a nomination paper in any election to be held for the first time under this Act and the period of such disqualification has not elapsed or the disqualification has not been removed; or (k) is disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purpose of election to the State Legislative Assembly: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than 25 years of age if he has attained the age of 21 years; (l) is so disqualified by or under any law made by the legislature of the State; (m) has more than two living children one of whom is born on or after the 26th day of January, 2001. (2) If any person having been elected as an office bearer of Panchayat – (a) subsequently becomes subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in sub-section (1) and such disqualification is not removable or being removable is not removed (or becomes office bearer concealing his disqualification for it which has not been questioned and decided by any election petition under section 122; (b) accepts employment as legal practitioner against the Panchayat; (c) absents himself from three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat or its committee or does not attend half the number of meetings held during the period of six months without the leave of the Panchayat; he shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), cease to be such office bearer and his office shall become vacant: Provided that where an application is made by an office bearer to the Panchayat for leave to absent himself under clause (c) and the Panchayat fails to inform the applicant of its decision on the application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the application, the leave applied for, shall be deemed to have been granted by the Panchayat. (3) In every case the authority competent to decide whether a vacancy has occurred under sub-section (2) shall be Collector in respect of Gram Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat and Commissioner in respect of Zila Perishad who may give his decision either on an application made to him by any person or on his own motion. Until, the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case may be decides that the vacancy has occurred, the person shall not cease to be an office bearer: Provided that no order shall be passed under this sub-section against any office bearer without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Any person aggrieved by the decision of Collector or Commissioner, as the case may be, under sub-section (3), may, within a period of 30 days from the date of such decision appeal to Commissioner or Board of Revenue respectively whose orders in such appeal shall be final." 10. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of the said Adhiniyam, 1972 it is clear that for the purpose of disqualification for being representative of an agriculturist in the Mandi Samiti, provision of section 36 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 has been borrowed. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of the said Adhiniyam, 1972 it is clear that for the purpose of disqualification for being representative of an agriculturist in the Mandi Samiti, provision of section 36 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 has been borrowed. As per sub-section (2) of section 36 of the said Adhiniyam, 1993 any person having been elected as an office bearer of Panchayat, subsequently becomes subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in sub-section (1) and such disqualification is not removable or being removable is not removed, and he shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), cease to be such office bearer and his office shall become vacant. 11. From the language of sub-section (3) of section 36 of the said Adhiniyam, 1993 it is clear that the same is applicable only to the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Parishad. Though the proviso of sub-section (3) also provides that no order shall be passed under this subsection against any officer bearer without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Under sub-section (4) remedy of appeal has also been provided against the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner under sub-section (3). It appears that provisions of subsection (3) and (4) of section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 have been specifically made for the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Parishad and in the aforesaid sections nothing has been mentioned about their application to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. Sub-section (3) of section 11 B of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 provides only about disqualification for being a representative of agriculturist. Therefore, according to us as per sub-section (3) of section 11B only provisions of disqualification have been borrowed from the Adhiniyam of 1993, as in sub-section (1) of section 36 disqualification, have been mentioned and in sub-section (2) of section 36 subsequent disqualification have been mentioned. Therefore, we are of the view that whenever subsequent disqualification as has been mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 36 will be considered then it shall also be considered that any person having being elected as an office bearer, shall subject to the provisions of subsection (2) cease to be such office bearer and his office shall become vacant. 12. Therefore, we are of the view that whenever subsequent disqualification as has been mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 36 will be considered then it shall also be considered that any person having being elected as an office bearer, shall subject to the provisions of subsection (2) cease to be such office bearer and his office shall become vacant. 12. This disqualification appears to be automatic under the law and there may not be any question for providing any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person concerned unless the facts are disputed. For interpreting the language contained in sub-clause (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of section 36 of the said Adhiniyam, 1993 there may be dispute about some facts and for that purpose, the question of providing of reasonable opportunity of being heard, may come for consideration, but so far as the question of disqualification because of conviction as has been mentioned in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)(a) of section 36 of the said Adhiniyam, 1993 is concerned, the question of affording an opportunity of being heard, may not arise. This appears to be logical because when by order of the competent Court if a person is convicted then opportunity of hearing can be declined as the disqualification is based on proved facts. Thus, in our considered opinion in this case there is no question for grant of any opportunity of hearing as there is no dispute about conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid sections. 13. So far as the next question about the application of the provisions of section 55 of Adhiniyam of 1972 is concerned, as has been argued by Shri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant the provision of section 55 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 is related to removal of member, Chairman and vice-Chairman of Market Committee. According to this section power has been given to the Managing Director, who on his own motion or on a resolution passed by a majority of 2/3rd 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. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the word "incapacity" the word "legal incapacity" is also included. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the word "incapacity" the word "legal incapacity" is also included. Therefore, in such circumstances when a person is convicted he should be deemed to have become legally incapable of holding the office and he can be removed. We do not deny this position that under the word "incapacity" the authority may consider the case of all kind of incapacity physical, mental and legal incapacity and in the common parlance, under the general meaning of word "incapacity", "disqualification" is also included. But by and large, section 55 is related to removal of a member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman. Admittedly conviction in criminal case by competent Court is a disqualification and under section 11B(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1972, read with section 36 of the Adhiniyam of 1993, on conviction a person shall cease to hold office and office become vacant. According to us there is clear distinction between a case of disqualification because of his conviction and a case of removal because of incapacity. In case of removal of a member or Chairman he may be or may not be removed by the Managing Director or by the Committee itself but under section 11 B of the Adhiniyam, 1972 read with section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, on conviction the disqualification is automatic under the law and if an office bearer has disqualified for being office bearer, he shall cease to be office bearer and his office shall become vacant and he shall be disqualified for being a representative of agriculturists in the Mandi Sarniti. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of section 55 are not applicable in this case. But certainly the provisions of section 11B(3) read with section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 are applicable and according to these provisions the disqualification is applicable automatically by operation of law. The meaning of the word "cease" which has been used under section 36(2) of the Adhiniyam of 1993, the plain and simple dictionary meaning is to put an end to; to put a stop; to come to an end; to stop doing. To "cease" does not necessarily import an act of free will. The word "cease" means "discontinue" or "put to an end to". There is no scope for importing any notion of suspension into that expression. To "cease" does not necessarily import an act of free will. The word "cease" means "discontinue" or "put to an end to". There is no scope for importing any notion of suspension into that expression. See Mahant Narayana Dessjivaru v. State of Andhra [ AIR 1959 AP 471 ]. 14. The next question for consideration is whether the Collector is empowered to enforce it. There is no controversy that the appellant has earned disqualification and by virtue of his conviction by the criminal Court he became disqualified to hold the office of Chairman and the disqualification is automatic under the law. Under section 13 of the Act of 1972 wide powers have been provided to the Collector. Under sub-section (1) of section 13, it has been provided that the first meeting of the Market Committee shall be convened by the Collector within one month from the date of publication of result of election of Chairman and members in the official Gazette. Therefore, under sub-section (1), it is the Collector who shall convene the first meeting of the Market Committee. Under sub-section (2) of section 13, it has been provided that the Market Committee shall hold the office for a period of 5 years from the date of first meeting of the Market Committee and under the proviso of sub-section (2), if on the expiry of the term of the Market Committee, a new Market Committee is not constituted the Market Committee shall be deemed to have been dissolved and in such an event, the provisions of section 57 shall apply. Section 57 deals with the consequences of dissolution under section 13 and as per proviso of clause (b), the Collector has been empowered to nominate an Officer-in-Charge in the event of death, resignation, leave or suspension of the Officer-in-Charge and till the new Officer-in-Charge is appointed by the Managing Director, the Collector may nominate a person to act as an Officer-in-charge. Therefore, power has been provided to the Collector under proviso of sub-section (2) of section 13 read with section 57 to act in case of any contingency in the Mandi Samiti. Further, under sub-section (3) of section 13, the Collector again has been vested with the power of accepting resignation of a member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman. Therefore, power has been provided to the Collector under proviso of sub-section (2) of section 13 read with section 57 to act in case of any contingency in the Mandi Samiti. Further, under sub-section (3) of section 13, the Collector again has been vested with the power of accepting resignation of a member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman. There is another provision under sub-section (4) of section 13 that when any person who is elected as a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat, Panchayat or Cooperative Society, is elected as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of the Market Committee may, within 30 days by notice in writing signed by him and delivered to the Collector, intimate in which of the office he wishes to serve and in default of such communication, his seat in the Market Committee shall become vacant. Sub-section (5) of section 13 provides that in the event of death, resignation or removal of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or member before the expiry of his term or on the occurrence of the vacancy under sub-section (4) or otherwise, a casual vacancy shall be deemed to have occurred in such office and such vacancy shall be filled within 6 months by election in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Sub-section (6) is a material section. According to this sub-section (6) of section 13, in the event of occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman by reason of his death, resignation or removal or otherwise the Vice-Chairman, and if the office of the Vice-Chairman is also vacant then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, such member of the Market Committee who is elected under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 11 as the Collector may appoint, shall exercise powers and perform the functions of the Chairman till the Chairman is duly elected. 15. According to us, this section provides power to the Collector to appoint a person to exercise powers and perform the function of the Chairman in case of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman occurs on account of any of the four reasons. This provides power to the Collector to act under contingency with non-obstante clause. This non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) overrides the power of other authority. Therefore, this clause controls the power and provides further power to the Collector to act in contingency. This provides power to the Collector to act under contingency with non-obstante clause. This non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) overrides the power of other authority. Therefore, this clause controls the power and provides further power to the Collector to act in contingency. Accordingly with the help of non-obstante clause the Collector can exercise power to meet those contingencies. Therefore, under sub-section (6) to meet such contingencies when the disqualification is automatic, by operation of law, in the event of any occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise, the Vice-Chairman shall hold the office and if the post of the Vice-Chairman is also vacant then the Collector may appoint such member of the Committee to exercise powers and perform the functions of the Chairman. When the appellant has become disqualified and because of the aforesaid disqualification vacancy has occurred in the office, then Vice-Chairman can hold the office automatically and in such situation alongwith the appointment of member of the Market Committee as Chairman the Collector is also empowered to pass an order as has been passed in this case on 14.4.2006. In the aforesaid order dated 14.4.2006 (Annexure P-l), the Collector has only declared that because of the conviction and because of the automatic disqualification the office of the Chairman has become vacant and until the Chairman is duly elected, the Vice-Chairman is authorised to exercise powers and perform the functions of the Chairman. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, in our considered opinion, when under section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the Collector is having power to convene first meeting of the Market Committee and is also having the power to accept resignation of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or member of the Committee and to accept the choice of the office bearer to hold the office, it has to be deemed that under sub-section (6) in the event of occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman, the Collector is having power to appoint any member of the Market Committee as Vice-Chairman or member of the Committee to perform the functions of the Chairman. According to us, this sub-section (6) provides contingent powers to the Collector with non-obstante clause to fill-up the office which becomes vacant on account of disqualification, which is automatic under the law, as there is no other provision in the Adhiniyam, 1972. According to us, this sub-section (6) provides contingent powers to the Collector with non-obstante clause to fill-up the office which becomes vacant on account of disqualification, which is automatic under the law, as there is no other provision in the Adhiniyam, 1972. In this case, it is undisputed that the vacation of the office under the law is automatic and the same does not require any declaration, but if any contingency so arises, then the Collector can communicate and it has to be deemed that the Legislature has provided power to him to till-up those contingencies. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions. we do not find that the impugned order dated 14.4.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector is illegal or without jurisdiction or the learned Single Judge has committed any illegality in dismissing the writ petition. No interference is called for, thus this writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, it is directed that the election for the post of Chairman shall be held immediately within a period of two months in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own cost.