Judgment : (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Heard Shri Paliwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri A. M. Ghare, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. P. D. Rane, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. The short question that arises in the present writ petition is whether a member elected on the Agriculture Produce Market Committee from the constituency of elected Gram Panchayat members has a right to continue as a member of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee after he has resigned as a Gram Panchayat Member. 4. The petitioner was, initially, elected as a member of Gram Panchayat, Mahakal. By virtue of provisions of Section 13(1)(a)(ii) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963), the petitioner contested the elections to the respondent No.1 Market Committee in the year 2010 from the constituency comprising of members of Village Panchayats and was duly declared elected. Thereafter, on 21-2-2012, the petitioner resigned from the post of Sarpanch and member of Gram Panchayat Mahakal. The said resignation was duly accepted on 26-3-2012. The aforesaid fact of resignation of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the office of the respondent No.2. As, according to the respondent No.2, the petitioner was disqualified from continuing as the member of the respondent No.1 Market Committee, the proceedings under Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963 r/w Rule 41(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1967) were initiated. After granting due opportunity to the petitioner, on 10-6-2013, the respondent No.2 passed an order removing the petitioner as the member of the Market Committee. This order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring appeal before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 by order dated 8-7-2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the order passed by the respondent No.2. It is this order that has been challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963 are not applicable in the case of an agriculturist, elected in terms of Section 13(a)(ii) of the Act of 1963. 5. It is this order that has been challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963 are not applicable in the case of an agriculturist, elected in terms of Section 13(a)(ii) of the Act of 1963. 5. Shri Paliwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has been wrongly held by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the petitioner was disqualified from continuing as the member of the Market Committee in view of his resignation as a Gram Panchayat Member. It was submitted that as the petitioner was an agriculturist member who was elected from the constituency of Village Panchayats under Section 13(1)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1963, he was neither a representative, nor was holding licence as stipulated in the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963, and hence, was not liable to be removed on account of his resignation as a Gram Panchayat member. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the provisions of Section 2(1)(b) which define “agriculturist” submitted that as the petitioner continued to be an agriculturist residing in the Market area, his resignation as member of the Gram Panchayat was inconsequential. As the Village Panchayat's constituency comprising of 679 voters had duly elected the petitioner as member of the Market Committee and he not being disqualified in terms of the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963, his removal was illegal and contrary to law. 6. Shri A. M. Ghare, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was entitled to contest the elections for the post of member of the Market Committee from the constituency of Village Panchayats only because he was an elected member of Gram Panchayat Mahakal. On his resignation as a Gram Panchayat member, the petitioner stood automatically disqualified to continue as a member of a Market Committee. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 laid emphasis on the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963 and submitted that the petitioner was in fact, a representative of members of Village Panchayats and, therefore, was entitled to continue as such till he was a Gram Panchayat member. He, therefore, submitted that the order removing the petitioner was passed in accordance with law. He, therefore, submitted that the order removing the petitioner was passed in accordance with law. 7. Ms. P. D. Rane, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 also supported the impugned order. Relying upon the provisions of Rule 35(1)(B) and Rule 36 of the Rules of 1967, it was submitted that there being a separate constituency for Village Panchayat, the entitlement to continue to represent such constituency would come to an end on resignation as a Gram Panchayat Member. It was submitted that the impugned order had been passed after taking into account the relevant provisions of the Act of 1963 and the Rules of 1967. The learned Counsel, therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The provisions of Section 13(1)(a)(ii) being relevant are reproduced hereunder: “13 Constitution of Market Committees. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), every Market Committee consists of the following [….........] members], namely:- [(a) [fifteen agriculturists residing in the market area (being persons whose names appear in the voter's list for the concerned constituency and who are not less than twenty one years of age on the date specified, from time to time by the Collector or the District Deputy Registrar, as the case may be, in this behalf), as specified below:] (ii) four (of which, one shall be a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and one shall be a person belonging to Economically Weaker Section), shall be elected by members of Village Panchayats functioning therein;] The provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963 under which the petitioner has been held to have vacated his office reads as under:- “15. Commencement of term of office of members. Commencement of term of office of members. (1) The term of office of members of a Market Committee shall be deemed to commence on the date of the first meeting of the Market Committee at which business is transacted: [Provided that, a person who is a member by virtue of his being a representative, or holding office, or holding licence belonging to any of the categories of members referred to in sub-section (1) or (1A) of section 13, shall hold office as such member so long only as he continues to be such representative or to hold such office or such licence and on his ceasing to be such representative or holding such office or licence he shall cease to be such member and he shall be deemed to have vacated his office.” ….............................................. 9. A perusal of aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1963 makes it clear that the Market Committee is required to be constituted as provided by Section 13 of the Act of 1963. Out of 15 agriculturists, residing in the market area, eleven are to be elected by members of the managing Committees of the Agricultural Credit Societies and Multipurpose Co-operative Societies. The other four are to be elected by members of Village Panchayats functioning therein. It is, therefore, clear that eleven members of the Market Committee are elected from the constituency of the Managing Committees of Co-operative Societies and four members are elected by a constituency comprising of members of Village Panchayats. Under the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963, a person who is a member of the Market Committee by virtue of his being a representative or holding office or holding licence from any of the categories of members referred to in Section 13(1) is entitled to hold office as such member only as long as he continues to be such representative or hold such office or such licence. It is further stipulated that on such member ceasing to be a representative or holding such office or licence, he ceases to be such member and is, therefore, deemed to have vacated his office. Similarly, perusal of Rule 35(1)(B) and Rule 36 of the Rules of 1967 indicate that there is a separate constituency of Village Panchayats duly carved out and a separate voters list for the constituency of members of Village Panchayats is also required to be maintained. 10. Similarly, perusal of Rule 35(1)(B) and Rule 36 of the Rules of 1967 indicate that there is a separate constituency of Village Panchayats duly carved out and a separate voters list for the constituency of members of Village Panchayats is also required to be maintained. 10. In so far as the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner continued to be an agriculturist, his ceasing to be a member of the Gram Panchayat would not disentitle him to continue as member of the Market Committee is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. The scheme of Section 13(1) of the Act of 1963 is clear in as much as it provides for representation on the Market Committee from two constituencies namely members of Managing Committees of Cooperative Societies and members of Village Panchayat's functioning in the market area in so far as fifteen members are concerned. It is only such member of the Gram Panchayat who is eligible to contest elections from the constituency of Village Panchayats under provisions of Section 13(1)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1963. It is because such person is a member of the Gram Panchayat and his name is shown in the list of voters from the Village Panchayat's Constituency as required by Rule 35 (1)(B) read with Rule 36 of the Rules of 1967 that enables him to participate in the said election. It is, therefore, clear that the sine qua non for contesting elections of member of the market Committee from the Village Panchayat's constituency is being a member of a Gram Panchayat. It is even the case of the petitioner that he has been duly elected as member of the Market Committee from the Village Panchayat's constituency comprising of 679 voters. Thus, the eligibility of a person to represent such constituency continues as long as he is a member of the Gram Panchayat. The moment such member who is elected from the Village Panchayat's constituency ceases to be a member of the Gram Panchayat, he loses the right to represent such constituency. It is in this context, therefore, that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was neither a representative, nor was holding office, nor holding licence and thus, was not liable to be removed as member of the Market Committee cannot be countenanced. It is in this context, therefore, that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was neither a representative, nor was holding office, nor holding licence and thus, was not liable to be removed as member of the Market Committee cannot be countenanced. The petitioner, in fact, was a representative of the Village Panchayats in the market area of the respondent No.1 – Market Committee and hence, on his resignation as a member of the Gram Panchayat, he ceased to be such representative. It is clear from a reading of the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963 that the entitlement to hold office as member of the Market Committee continues only till such time that such member continues to be a representative. In fact, there is a deeming fiction that is created in the said proviso that on ceasing to be such representative, the member would be deemed to have vacated his office. That he continues to be an agriculturist cannot change the situation. Therefore, on a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the petitioner cannot continue as a member of the Market Committee after he had resigned from his membership of the Gram Panchayat. 11. A perusal of the order dated 10-6-2013 passed by the respondent No.2 indicates that the said authority has rightly considered the aforesaid controversy and has held that as the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Gram Panchayat, he had consequently lost the right to continue as member of the Market Committee. The appellate authority – respondent no.3 has affirmed the order passed by the respondent No.2 while accepting the reasons given therein. In view of the clear provisions of Section 13(1)(a)(ii) read with the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1963, no fault can be found with the said impugned orders. The challenge, therefore, as raised by the petitioner fails. The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. At this stage, Shri Paliwal the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks continuation of the interim order granted on 6-8-2013. Said request is strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The challenge, therefore, as raised by the petitioner fails. The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. At this stage, Shri Paliwal the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks continuation of the interim order granted on 6-8-2013. Said request is strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Considering the provisions of Section 15(1) proviso of the Act of 1963 and the view that we have taken, the said prayer for continuation of interim relief is rejected.