Judgment A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to a notice dated 02.12.2013, that has been issued by the respondent no.1 for convening a special meeting of respondent no.16 Market Committee, to consider the motion of no confidence that was proposed to be moved against the petitioner. 3. Respondent no.16 Market Committee comprises of 18 Directors, and petitioner is its elected Chairman. The respondent nos. 3 to 15 who are also Directors of the Market Committee forwarded a requisition dated 28.11.2013 to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur. In said requisition, it was stated that the aforesaid respondents proposed to move a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. A request was made to the District Deputy Registrar to convene a meeting of the Market Committee for considering the motion of no confidence. On 28.11.2013, the District Deputy Registrar forwarded the aforesaid communication to the office of the respondent no.1 Collector, for further action. Thereafter on 02.12.2013, a notice was issued by the respondent no.1 to convene a special meeting under the provisions of Section 23A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1963 Act” for short). The aforesaid meeting was scheduled on 13.12.2013. It is this notice of special meeting which has been challenged in the present petition. 4. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Shri M.P. Khajanchi and Shri M.I. Dhatrak, learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that the notice as issued is not in accordance with law. It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 23A (2) of the 1963 Act, a requisition for holding a special meeting for considering a motion of no confidence is required to be sent to the Collector under intimation to the Director. It is submitted that in the present case, the requisition was addressed to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who thereafter forwarded the same to the Collector. It is therefore submitted that in absence of any requisition being sent to the Collector as contemplated by Sub-section [2] of Section 23A, the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue a notice convening the special meeting. It is therefore submitted that in absence of any requisition being sent to the Collector as contemplated by Sub-section [2] of Section 23A, the Collector had no jurisdiction to issue a notice convening the special meeting. It was further submitted that the period as mentioned for holding the special meeting was not in accordance with the period as specified in the bye-laws of the respondent no.16 Committee. It was submitted that under Bye law no.36 of the aforesaid byelaws, a notice of 10 days was required to be given from the period of issuance of notice for holding said meeting. It is submitted that the notice in question, though issued on 02.12.2013 was received by the petitioner on 03.12.2013, while the meeting was to be held on 13.12.2013. It was therefore, submitted that the period of 10 clear days as required by byelaw no.36 was not available to the petitioner, and hence, the said notice was bad in law. It was further submitted that the respondent nos. 13 to 15 stood disqualified on account of their continuous absence for last three meetings in terms of provisions of Section 24 of the 1963 Act. It was submitted that the aforesaid three Directors had participated in the meeting in which it was resolved to move a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. However, as they had incurred disqualification on account of their absence without leave in three consecutive meetings of the Market Committee, they were not eligible to be counted as members, while determining the requisite figure as prescribed by Section 23A[2] of the 1963 Act. It was submitted that if the aforesaid three Directors were excluded, there were no requisite number of members and hence, respondent no.1 could not have convened a special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. 5. Shri H.D. Dangre, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 15 has opposed the petition and has relied upon the reply affidavit. It is submitted that the requisition was duly sent to the Collector by the District Deputy Registrar on its receipt and hence, there was due compliance of the requirement of Section 23A(2) of the 1963 Act. It was submitted that once such a requisition was sent to the Collector, the Collector was duty bound to have considered the same and proceeded further in accordance with law. It was submitted that once such a requisition was sent to the Collector, the Collector was duty bound to have considered the same and proceeded further in accordance with law. It is submitted that on that basis, a notice convening special meeting was issued. It was further submitted that the petitioner had got the requisite notice of 10 days, as required by bye-law no.36 and the due requirement of provisions of Section 23A were complied. The Collector had within 15 days from receiving the requisition convened the special meeting by notice dated 02.12.2013. It is submitted that as the petitioner received the aforesaid notice on 03.12.2013 and as the meeting was scheduled on 13.12.2013, the requisite period of 10 days was duly satisfied as required by bye-law no.36. It was further submitted that the words “clear days” have not been used while stipulating the period of 10 days and, hence, there was due compliance with the aforesaid provision. It was further submitted that there was no vacancy caused on account of absence of respondent nos. 13 to 15 for the last three meetings, as alleged. It is submitted that leave applications had been duly forwarded by the aforesaid Directors and there was no order passed on the said applications. Further there was no declaration that the aforesaid Directors had ceased to be members of the Market Committee. It was also submitted that the absence could be excused as the applications in that regard were duly made. The learned Counsel therefore, submitted that the impugned notice was issued in accordance with law, and hence sought dismissal of the Writ Petition. It was also submitted that the provisions of Section 23A with regard to holding of special meeting were independent from the provisions of Bye-law no.36, and hence, the provision in said bye-law could not be incorporated for nullifying the said notice. 6. Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 sought for time on the ground that he was awaiting instructions. 7. Shri R. Dhore, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 16 has filed affidavit on behalf of the Secretary and has placed reliance upon the communications on record resulting in issuance of the impugned notice. 8. In reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner has by relying upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha .vrs. 16 has filed affidavit on behalf of the Secretary and has placed reliance upon the communications on record resulting in issuance of the impugned notice. 8. In reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner has by relying upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Kishore Jha .vrs. Mahavir Prasad and others (1999) 8 SCC 266 ), submitted that in absence of 10 clear days notice, the impugned notice dated 02.12.2013 was not in accordance with law. Relying on the aforesaid decision, it was also submitted that, if the statute required a thing to be done in a particular manner, then the same was required to be done in that manner alone and not in any other manner. Reliance was also placed upon a judgment of learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in case of M. Mokkaiyan, President, Vaigai .vrs. The Assistant Director and others (1999) 2 Mh.L.J. 80 ), while submitting that the Authority who has been given powers to convene a meeting can alone exercise such powers and said powers cannot be exercised by any other authority. Similarly, the decision in case of NeerajaRajendranath Mishra .vrs. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation School Board and others ( 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 491 ) was also relied upon to make a distinction between 'notice' and 'clear notice'. It was submitted that the date on which the impugned notice was issued and the date on which the meeting was scheduled were required to be excluded and only thereafter, can it be said that a clear notice of 10 days was given to the petitioner. Similarly, reliance was also placed on an unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of MadhukarWamanrao Jagtap .vrs. Krishna Babaji Jagtap and others (Special Civil Application No. 74/1963 decided on 05.07.1963), to canvass that unless a proper notice, as prescribed by the Rules was received by the concerned Authority, no action thereon can be taken. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the dictionary meaning of word “requisition”. By referring to the aforesaid meaning as stated in Black's Law Dictionary as well as in Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, it was submitted that the word 'requisition' means “a demand in writing or formal request or requirement.” 9. Provisions of Sub-sections [1], [2] and [3] of Section 23A of 1963 Act are relevant and they read as under : “23A. By referring to the aforesaid meaning as stated in Black's Law Dictionary as well as in Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, it was submitted that the word 'requisition' means “a demand in writing or formal request or requirement.” 9. Provisions of Sub-sections [1], [2] and [3] of Section 23A of 1963 Act are relevant and they read as under : “23A. Motion of no-confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman. (1) A Chairman or a Vice-Chairman shall cease forthwith to be Chairman or Vice-Chairman as the case may be, if the Market Committee by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-third of the total number of members (excluding the members who have no right to vote) at a special meeting so decides. (2) The requisition of such special meeting shall be signed by not less than one half of the total number of members (excluding the members who have no right to vote) and shall be sent to the Collector under intimation to the Director. (3) The Collector shall, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the requisition under sub-section [2], convene a special meeting of the Committee: Provided that, when the Collector convenes such special meeting of the Committee, he shall give intimation thereof to the Chairman, or as the case may be, Vice-Chairman and also to the Director.” Sub-section [2] of Section 23A requires that a requisition for a special meeting should be signed by not less than half of the total number of members who are entitled to vote and shall be sent to the Collector, under intimation to the Director. Sub-section [3] requires that within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the requisition under sub-section [2], a special meeting of the Market Committee should be convened and the Collector should give intimation thereof to the Chairman and also to the Director. While considering the aforesaid provisions, it would be necessary to keep in mind the fact that the aforesaid provisions relate to removal of an elected member by passing a motion of no confidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir .vrs. District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407 has held that a right to hold an elective post is a statutory right and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the said post. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir .vrs. District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407 has held that a right to hold an elective post is a statutory right and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the said post. However, he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal. The object behind making a requisition and sending it to the Collector under provisions of sub-section [2] of Section 23A is, that it is for the Collector to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the requirement of the aforesaid provisions namely that such requisition has been duly signed by not less than half of the total number of members entitled to vote, has been duly complied with. Under sub-section [3] of the aforesaid Section, the Collector has been given a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such requisition to convene a special meeting. While considering the provisions of sub-section [2] and sub-section [3] of Section 23A of the said Act, it is clear that the Collector has to act, once such a requisition is made to him, with intimation to the Director. The jurisdiction that has been conferred by the aforesaid section is only on the Collector, and it is he who has to take further steps as stipulated by sub-section [3] of Section 23A in the matter of convening a special meeting. 10. Requisition dated 28.11.2013 is stated to be signed by respondent nos. 3 to 15. The same is however, addressed to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur. In the said requisition, a request has been made to the District Deputy Registrar, to convene a special meeting of the Market Committee to consider the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. It was forwarded by the said Authority to the office of respondent no.1, on the basis of which the impugned notice for holding a special meeting has been issued. It is therefore, clear that as required by provisions of Section 23A[2] of 1963 Act, there is no requisition that is made to the Collector. On the contrary such requisition has been made to the District Deputy Registrar. The District Deputy Registrar under the scheme of Section 23A of 1963 Act has no role whatsoever to play. It is therefore, clear that as required by provisions of Section 23A[2] of 1963 Act, there is no requisition that is made to the Collector. On the contrary such requisition has been made to the District Deputy Registrar. The District Deputy Registrar under the scheme of Section 23A of 1963 Act has no role whatsoever to play. Neither there is a request made in the aforesaid requisition dated 28.11.2013 to the Collector to convene a special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence, nor requisitionists request him to forward it to the Collector. It is therefore, clear that a requisition that was received by the District Deputy Registrar on 28.11.2013 was forwarded by him to the office of the Collector of his own and on that basis, a notice for special meeting as issued on 02.12.2013. The impugned notice has been issued by the Collector without there being any requisition to him to convene a special meeting by requisitionists. Infact the Collector in the present case is not at all called upon to convene a special meeting as he did not receive any such requisition from respondent nos. 3 to 15. Such requisition was made by them to the District Deputy Registrar who had no authority whatsoever to take any action in the said matter. It is difficult for the Collector to infer an unequivocal intention of requisitionists to call for a meeting. We, therefore, find the notice dated 02.12.2013 is upon a requisition which is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 23A of the 1963 Act. 11. In so far as the decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel in case of Chandra Kishore Jha .vrs. Mahavir Prasad and others (supra) is concerned, the principle laid down therein can hardly be debated. The power and authority having been given to the Collector to convene a special meeting on receiving a requisition, the same is required to be exercised with due care and caution. Exercise of such power should reveal proper application of mind to the requisition that has been duly submitted. In the present case, the respondent no.1 has without jurisdiction acted upon a requisition not addressed to him, but to the District Deputy Registrar. Exercise of such power should reveal proper application of mind to the requisition that has been duly submitted. In the present case, the respondent no.1 has without jurisdiction acted upon a requisition not addressed to him, but to the District Deputy Registrar. In so far as the dictionary meaning of the word “requisition” is concerned, it is clear that a demand in writing or a formal request is required to be made to such authority who has the jurisdiction to take its cognizance and further necessary steps. 12. Having held that the notice dated 02.12.2013 is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23A of the 1963 Act, other challenges to the aforesaid notice are required to be referred to. In so far as the submission relating to notice period being short, the cognizance and notice itself have been found to be contrary to law, there is no necessity to consider the aforesaid submission in the present facts. In so far as the issue pertaining to the alleged disqualification of respondent nos. 13 to 15 is concerned, again the same is not required to be gone into at this stage. We express no opinion on the said issue and keep the same open for its due consideration, as and when such occasion arises. 13. In the result, we hold that the notice dated 02.12.2013, being contrary to the provisions of Section 23A of the 1963 Act, is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the terms of prayer clause (i), with no order as to cost.