( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Desai, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent State. With the consent of the learned Counsel for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today. ( 2 ) ALL the petitioners, except petitioner No. 8 in SCA No. 25858 of 2006 were the members of the Agricultural Produce Market committee, Rajkot, which has been bifurcated into Agricultural Produce Market committee, Rajkot Lodhika and Agricultural Produce Market committee, Paddhari. All the petitioners including petitioner No. 8 of SCA No. 25858 of 2006 have preferred the petitions to quash and set aside the proceedings initiated under Section 44 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the final report made thereunder. The petitioners have also challenged the initiation of the proceedings pursuant to the Notice dated 12. 10. 2006 issued in purported exercise of the power under Section 50 of the Act to show-cause notice as to why the order should not be passed under Section 50 based on the report of the inquiry made under Section 44 of the Act. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel appearing with Ms. Jani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (s) in SCA No. 25858 of 2006 and allied matters, Mr. P. M. Thakkar, learned Counsel with Mr. Pahwa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (s) in SCA No. 25878 of 2006 and allied matters and Mr. Desai, learned AGP for the State Authorities. ( 4 ) UPON hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears that so far as petitioner No. 8 in SCA No. 25858 of 2006 is concerned, his case would be separately considered as stated hereinafter since he was neither member nor elected representative of the Market Committee, but was Secretary and paid employee of the Committee. The rest of the petitioners were elected representatives or the members of the Market Committee. It is true that the inquiry was undertaken under Section 44 of the Act by respondent No. 2 and based on the report of the inquiry under Section 44 of the Act, the impugned show-cause notice has been issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 50 of the Act. It is true that the inquiry was undertaken under Section 44 of the Act by respondent No. 2 and based on the report of the inquiry under Section 44 of the Act, the impugned show-cause notice has been issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 50 of the Act. ( 5 ) ONE of the grievances raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the copy of the inquiry report under Section 44 of the Act was not supplied to the petitioners. I would have considered the matter for entitlement of the report by the petitioners, as compliance to the observance of the principles of natural justice, however, the learned AGP declared before this Court that the copy of the report shall be supplied by the authority to the petitioners concerned within a period of one week from today and the next date for hearing will be intimated. Therefore, I find that no such direction is required, except observing that the respondent authority shall abide by the declaration made before this Court. It hardly requires to be recorded that any party who is facing the show-cause notice, would be entitled to have the defence and if the authority is to act upon any document, the party facing the show-cause notice, would be entitled to have a copy or the inspection of the record, as the case may be. Since the said aspect is sufficiently taken care of by the declaration made by the learned AGP no much discussion is required on the said aspect. ( 6 ) AS regards the impugned challenge is concerned, I find that the same is not required to be entertained at this stage, since after the report under Section 44 of the Act, the only show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act reads as under: "section 50. ( 6 ) AS regards the impugned challenge is concerned, I find that the same is not required to be entertained at this stage, since after the report under Section 44 of the Act, the only show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act reads as under: "section 50. Every member of the market committee shall be personally liable for any misapplication of its moneys to which he shall have been a party, or which shall have occurred through, or been facilitated by, gross neglect of his duty as a member, and may be sued for recovery of the moneys so misapplied as if such moneys had been the property of the State Government; provided that no member shall be personally liable in respect of any contract or agreement made, or for any expense incurred by, or on behalf of, the market committee, and the funds of the market committee shall be liable for, and be charged with, all costs in respect of any such contract and agreement and all such expenses. " ( 7 ) AS such, the section does not contemplate any prior show-cause notice or following of the prior principles of natural justice. However, if by way of observance of principles of natural justice with a view to see that there may not be any frivolous litigation, if show-cause notice is issued, the same cannot be said as unreasonable or arbitrary. The pertinent aspect is that even if the Director under Section 50 of the Act finds that there is any alleged misapplication of money, such member is required to be sued for the recovery of the money so misapplied, as if such money had been the property of the State Government. Therefore, even after the decision under Section 50 of the Act appropriate suit is required to be filed in the appropriate Court against the erring members for recovery of the amount. At that stage, the concerned member, who may be the defendants in the said suit can raise all defences as may be permissible in law and the Civil Court is to take independent view of the matter on the basis of the material as may be available on record. At that stage, the concerned member, who may be the defendants in the said suit can raise all defences as may be permissible in law and the Civil Court is to take independent view of the matter on the basis of the material as may be available on record. Therefore, when the Civil Court is yet to examine the defence, which may be of the members of the Market Committee, either it may be against the report under Section 44 of the Act or may be against the decision under Section 50 of the Act to sue, this Court would normally not entertain the challenge resulting into stalemate in the process as contemplated by the legislature of suing the erring member. Further, as the petitioners are having opportunity to raise all the defence as may be available in law in such suit, in my view the challenge to the legality and validity of report under Section 44 of the Act or the initiation of the action under Section 50 of the Act is not required to be entertained at this stage. Hence, the petitions do not deserve to be entertained qua the prayers made by the petitioners against the report under Section 44 of the Act or against the initiation of the action under Section 50 of the Act. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners orally voiced the grievance that after the decision under Section 50 of the Act, apart from suing before the appropriate Court, the same is being made as a basis for disqualification by the persons concerned to contest election as the members of the Market Committee. It was submitted that pursuant to the direction given by this Court in its order dated 28. 9. 2006 in SCA No. 15403 of 2006 and allied matters, the elections are ensued and, therefore, the apprehension voiced on behalf of the petitioners is that by projecting the order under Section 50, petitioners may not be prevented from contesting election or the nomination may not be rejected on such ground. ( 9 ) MR. DESAI, learned AGP submitted that the aforesaid is an oral submission and such is outside the subject matter of the petition. Mr. ( 9 ) MR. DESAI, learned AGP submitted that the aforesaid is an oral submission and such is outside the subject matter of the petition. Mr. Desai, learned AGP however, could not point out any provisions under the Act providing for disqualification by the persons concerned to contest election as the members of the Market Committee in the event any order is passed under Section 50 of the Act or the suit is filed against the persons concerned. He submitted that such aspect as such is premature and such question can be permitted to be adjudicated only if such contingency arises of rejection of the nomination of the persons concerned, if ultimately the election process is declared or election has started. ( 10 ) IT prima facie appears that if Section 50 is read with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, the person concerned is not disabled from continuing as the member of the Market Committee since such is not an express disqualification provided under the Act. However, since such contingency has not arisen in the present case, I find that it is not necessary for this Court to conclude the said aspect and suffice it to observe that the party may adjudicate such question at a proper time, if there is any illegal action, preventing to contest the election or to reject the nomination, as the case may be. ( 11 ) SO far as the petitioner No. 8 is concerned, who was the paid employee of the Market Committee and as it has been stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in SCA No. 25878 of 2006, he has reached the age of superannuation and he has retired, there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that section 50 of the Act can be resorted to against the member of the Market Committee and the section does not provide for employee of the Market Committee. As such, the relationship between the employee of the Market Committee with the Market Committee would be normally governed by the service conditions and Staff Regulations etc. The paid employees are not covered under Section 50 of the Act. As such, the relationship between the employee of the Market Committee with the Market Committee would be normally governed by the service conditions and Staff Regulations etc. The paid employees are not covered under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore, if there is any report under Section 44 of the Act, may be against the paid employee of the Market Committee, initiation of the proceedings under Section 50 of the Act against the paid employee of the Market Committee, which is in the present case, Secretary of the Market Committee is not permissible. Therefore, the said action would be ultra vires the powers under Section 50 of the Act. Mr. Desai, learned AGP is not in a position to show any provisions or any part of Section 50 of the Act, which can be invoked qua the paid employee of the Market Committee. Under these circumstances, I find that the notice under Section 50 of the Act to the former paid employee of the Market Committee, who is petitioner No. 8 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. ( 12 ) IF, out of the inquiry under Section 44, there is any report against the petitioner No. 8, and if any action is initiated based on such report under Section 44 of the Act before the forum known to law, then in that case even otherwise also the petitioner No. 8 may have the opportunity of raising all objections so far as they relate to report under Section 44 of the Act. Therefore, to that extent the challenge by the petitioner No. 8 qua the report under Section 44 of the Act is not required to be entertained at this stage. ( 13 ) IN view of the above, subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is not entertained qua all the petitioners, except petitioner No. 8. As regards petitioner No. 8 of SCA No. 35878 of 2006 is concerned, it is hereby ordered that the power under Section 50 of the Act cannot be invoked and, therefore, the impugned notice date 12. 10. 2006 is quashed and set aside, subject to the observations made hereinabove. As regards petitioner No. 8 of SCA No. 35878 of 2006 is concerned, it is hereby ordered that the power under Section 50 of the Act cannot be invoked and, therefore, the impugned notice date 12. 10. 2006 is quashed and set aside, subject to the observations made hereinabove. Subject to the aforesaid directions, rule discharged in SCA No. 25858 of 2006 with Special Civil Application No. 25859 of 2006 to Special Civil Application No. 25863 of 2006 with Special Civil Application No. 25878 of 2006 to Special Civil Application No. 25884 of 2006. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent in Special Civil Application No. 25885 of 2006. No order as to cost. Direct service is permitted.