Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1263 (MP)

Ramesh Bhargava v. State of M. P.

2009-11-12

S.K.GANGELE

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) Heard finally. Petitioner have filed this petition challenging the order, Annexure P- 1 dated 15/5/2006 and the order, Annexure P-2 dated 14.10.2005. ( 2. ) All the petitioners had been granted licence as Tulaiyas (Tulwati) by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Karera, district Shivpuri. They were working as Tulaiyas for the last 14 years. There were some irregularities in the Krishi "Upaj Mandi Samiti, hence petitioners could not get their proper remunerations. Then they submitted complaint to Collector, district Shivpuri. The Collector directed Sub-Divisional Officer, Karera to conduct an enquiry. Sub Divisional Officer vide his report dated 30.6.2004 informed that the allegations levelled by Tulawati Sangh were true and the Acting Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and other employees were not working in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi, Adhiniyam, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972, and due to the aforesaid inaction there was a loss to Tulaiyas. Thereafter, petitioners submitted applications for renewal of their licences. The Market Committee vide resolution dated 17.9.2004 did not accept applications of the petitioners for grant of renewal of their licences and the Committee has decided to hold an enquiry against petitioners. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 26.2.2005. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid resolution passed by the Marketing Committee. The aforesaid writ petition was registerred as Writ petition No. 2259/04 and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.7.2005, with the following directions :- "Even though the respondents have stated that the matter is pending before the competent authority and action may be taken as per provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Uapj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 the fact remains that prima facie allegations of the petitioners are that the action is taken because of the complaint made by them and the enquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer. In such circumstances, interest of justice requires that final decision on the show cause notices and action initiated against the petitioners be conducted and decided by an independent impartial authority so that the apprehension of mala fide and arbitrariness indicated by the petitioners in this petition is ruled out. In such circumstances, interest of justice requires that final decision on the show cause notices and action initiated against the petitioners be conducted and decided by an independent impartial authority so that the apprehension of mala fide and arbitrariness indicated by the petitioners in this petition is ruled out. Considering the same, it is directed that the respondent No. 4, the Deputy Director, Mandis, Gwalior shall take action for finalisation of the question of show cause notices issued to the petitioners and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners shall pass necessary orders on the said show cause notices so also issue necessary direction to the Mandi Samiti in question for renewal of the licences to the petitioners in accordance with law. On the petitioners filing a certified copy of this order, the respondent No.4. Deputy Director, Mandi Samiti, Gwalior shall finalise the matter as directed hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition sands disposed of with the aforesaid. ( 3. ) Thereafter, Deputy Director conducted the enquiry. Before the Deputy Director the employees of the Mandi Samiti tendered their evidence and the petitioners also tendered their evidence. After considering the evidence on both sides, Deputy Director has found that the employees of the Mandi Samiti as well as petitioners were involved in some activities which were not in the interest of the Mandi. It has further been observed by the Deputy Director that due to the actions of the petitioners and employees of the Mandi, prestige of the Mandi has come down. Hence, Deputy Director held that the petitioners are not entitled for renewal of licences. Against the aforesaid order the petitioners preferred an appeal. The appellant Authority has also rejected the appeal. ( 4. ) From the enquiry report dated 30.6.2004 submitted by Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector, it is clear that the allegations levelled by the Society of Tulawaties were found proved. Thereafter, Deputy Director in his order dated 14/10/2005 also held that the action of the employees of the Mandi Samiti was not proper. It means that the complaint put forth by petitioners and delinquents were found proved. However, the Deputy Director in his order has not mentioned clearly that what was the illegality committed by petitioners. Thereafter, Deputy Director in his order dated 14/10/2005 also held that the action of the employees of the Mandi Samiti was not proper. It means that the complaint put forth by petitioners and delinquents were found proved. However, the Deputy Director in his order has not mentioned clearly that what was the illegality committed by petitioners. It has simply been observed that due to the action of the petitioners prestige of Mandi Committee has come down. For rejection of the applications for renewal of licences, it was obligatory on the part of the Authority to record a categorical finding that what was the act of the petitioner due to which they were not entitled for renewal of licences of Mandi Samiti have been found proved by the Deputy Director and also by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in his report dated 30/6/2004. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the decision for refusal to grant renewal of licences to the petitioners is illegal and against the provisions of law. ( 5. ) Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. Impugned orders, Annsxure P-1 dated 15th May 2006 and Annexure P-2 dated 14/10/2005 are hereby quashed. It is hereby directed that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti shall renew the licences of the petitioners. The petitioner shall deposit the requisite fee and also submit applications in prescribed form for the aforesaid purpose within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that the Mandi Samiti is free to find out that whether any criminal case of serious nature is registered against the petitioner (s) or not during the period when their licences were refused. If any criminal case of serious nature is registered then the Mandi Committee is free to take action in accordance with law. No order as to costs.