Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2620 (BOM)

Hukumchand v. Collector, Nagpur

2015-12-18

PRASANNA B.VARALE, VASANTI A.NAIK

body2015
JUDGMENT : VASANTI A NAIK, J. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought the cancellation of the special meeting dated 02.06.2015 for considering the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 as the respondent nos.4 to 7, who participated in the special meeting, were disqualified from being the members of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kamptee. 3. While the Agriculture Produce Market Committee of Kamptee was constituted, the respondent nos.4 to 6 were elected by the members of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies and Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Societies as per Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 1963. So also, the respondent no.7 was elected by the members of Village Panchayats functioning in the market area as per Section 13(1)(a)(ii). Admittedly, when a notice for calling the special meeting on 02.06.2015 to consider the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 was served on the petitioners and the respondents, the respondent nos.4 to 6 had ceased to be the members of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies. Their terms as members of the managing committee had expired and they were not reelected as members of the managing committee in the subsequent elections. So also, the term of the respondent no.7 as a member of the Village Panchayat had expired and the respondent no.7 was not reelected as a member of the Village Panchayat. Despite the fact that the respondent nos.4 to 7 had ceased to be the members of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies and Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Societies, the SubDivisional Officer invited the respondent nos.4 to 7 to the special meeting for considering the No Confidence Motion against the petitioners. The application made by the petitioner no.3 seeking the disqualification of the respondent nos.4 to 7 as members of the market committee was dismissed by the District Deputy Registrar. When this matter was heard for admission, this Court had, by an interim order dated 29.05.2015, refused to stay the scheduled meeting, dated 02.06.2015 and had directed that the votes be kept in a sealed cover in the custody of Sub-Divisional Officer, Mouda, District Nagpur so that the outcome of the motion should not be declared. 4. When this matter was heard for admission, this Court had, by an interim order dated 29.05.2015, refused to stay the scheduled meeting, dated 02.06.2015 and had directed that the votes be kept in a sealed cover in the custody of Sub-Divisional Officer, Mouda, District Nagpur so that the outcome of the motion should not be declared. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment reported in 2013(6) Mh.L.J. 688 (Purushottam s/o Pandharinath Tonpe Versus Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Wardha & Others) that the entitlement of a member to hold the Office of the market committee continues only till such time that such member continues to be the representative of the members on the managing committee of the Cooperative Societies or the Village Panchayats. It is submitted that no sooner than the person vacates his office as a member of the Village Panchayat or a member of the managing committee of an Agriculture Credit Society, the said person cannot continue as a member of the market committee. It is submitted that the respondent nos.4 to 7 had ceased to be the members of the managing committees of the societies and the village panchayat and, hence, they cannot continue as members of the market committee. 5. Per Contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.4 to 7 that it is held by this Court in an unreported order, dated 19.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013 that the member of the market committee, elected by the members of the managing committee of the Agriculture Credit Societies and the Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Societies under Section 13(1)(a)(i) would not cease to be a member of the market committee merely because his term as a member of the managing committee of the society has come to an end and he is not reelected. It is submitted that it is held in the order dated 19.01.2015 that the provisions of Section 13(1)(a)(i) do not mandate that an elected member of the market committee should also be a member of the managing committee of the Agriculture Credit Society or the Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Society. It is stated that by relying on the order dated 19.01.2015, the District Deputy Registrar has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner no.3 for disqualification of the respondent nos.4 to 7. It is stated that by relying on the order dated 19.01.2015, the District Deputy Registrar has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner no.3 for disqualification of the respondent nos.4 to 7. It is stated that the order of the District Deputy Registrar is in consonance with the order of this Court dated 19.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013 & Others. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also relied on the order dated 19.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013 & Others to support the order of the District Deputy Registrar. It is stated that since the application of the petitioner no.3, seeking disqualification of the respondent nos.4 to 7 was dismissed, the Collector had rightly called the special meeting for considering the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and permitted the respondent nos.4 to 7 to participate in the meeting. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgment reported in 2013(6) Mh.L.J. 688 (Purushottam s/o Pandharinath Tonpe Versus Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Wardha & Others) and the unreported order of this Court dated 19.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013, it appears that the respondent nos.4 to 7 ought to have been disqualified from the membership of the market committee. Admittedly, the respondent nos.4 to 7 were either the members of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies or the members of the Village Panchayats when they were elected to the market committee that was constituted under Section 13(1) of the Act. However, during the term of the market committee, the respondent nos.4 to 6 admittedly ceased to be the members of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies and the respondent no.7 ceased to be the member of the Village Panchayat, in view of the expiry of the term of the managing committees of the societies and the Village Panchayat respectively. Though the respondent nos.4 to 6 ceased to be the members of the managing committee as they were not reelected after the expiry of their term and though the respondent no.7 also ceased to be a member of the Village Panchayat after his term as a member of the Village Panchayat expired and he was not reelected, the respondent nos.4 to 7 continued to be the members of the market committee. In the reported decision, it is held that the representative of the Village Panchayat would cease to be the member of the market committee and would be deemed to have vacated his office as the member of the market committee as soon as he vacates the office of the membership of the Village Panchayat. While holding so, this Court had not only considered the provisions of Section 13 and 15 of the Act but, had also considered Rules 35 and 36 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967. Rule 35 of the Rules refers to the preparation of the list of voters and the division of the market area into constituencies. There are four constituencies out of which two are the Cooperative Societies Constituency and the Village Panchayat Constituency, with which we are concerned. Rule 36 refers to the preparation of the voters list. The District Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies is called upon by the Collector to prepare a list of members of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies and the Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Societies. So also, the list of members of the Village Panchayats is also prepared under Rule 36(1). The names of the respondent nos.4 to 6 were included in the voters list only because they were the members of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit societies and the Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Societies at the relevant time when the election to the market committee was held. During the term of the market committee, the respondent nos.4 to 6 had ceased to be the members of the managing committees of the Societies as the term of the managing committees had expired and the respondent nos.4 to 6 were not reelected. So was the case with the respondent no.7, who ceased to be the member of the Village Panchayat while he continued as a member of the market committee, despite the expiry of the term as a member of the Village Panchayat. Only those agriculturists, whose names appear in the voters list for the concerned constituencies, could be elected as the members of the market committee under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. Sub-Section (1)(a) of Section 13 provides that fifteen members on the market committees would be the agriculturists whose names appear in the voters list for the concerned constituencies. Only those agriculturists, whose names appear in the voters list for the concerned constituencies, could be elected as the members of the market committee under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. Sub-Section (1)(a) of Section 13 provides that fifteen members on the market committees would be the agriculturists whose names appear in the voters list for the concerned constituencies. Since out of fifteen members that are referred to in Sub-Section 1(a) of Section 13, eleven are to be elected by the members of the managing committee of the Agriculture Credit Societies and the Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Societies and four by the members of the Village Panchayats, the names of such agriculturists should find place in the voters list prepared for these constituencies, under Rule 36 of the Rules. A person's name cannot be included in the voters list for being elected under Section 13(1)(i) from that constituency unless the said person is the member of the managing committee of the Agriculture Credit society and the Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Society. The list of voters in the constituency of the Cooperative societies would include only the members of the managing committees of the societies functioning in the market area. Hence, unless a person's name finds place in the voters list from either of the constituencies, i.e. the Cooperative Societies Constituency or the Village Panchayats Constituency, they cannot be elected as members on the committee under Section 13(1)(a)(i) and (ii). Rule 37 provides that the voters list published finally under Rule 36 shall be conclusive evidence for the purpose of determining whether a person is qualified to vote or, as the case may be, is not qualified to be elected at any election. The voters list could be modified or amended under the provisions of the Rules. On a combined reading of Sections 13 and 15 of the Act and Rules 35, 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1967, it is clear that the respondent nos.4 to 7 were liable to be disqualified as members of the market committee. The District Deputy Registrar was not justified in rejecting the application made by the petitioners for disqualification of the respondent nos.4 to 7. While deciding Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013 and Others, the provisions of Rules 35, 36 and the other rules were not brought to the notice of this Court. The District Deputy Registrar was not justified in rejecting the application made by the petitioners for disqualification of the respondent nos.4 to 7. While deciding Writ Petition No.4092 of 2013 and Others, the provisions of Rules 35, 36 and the other rules were not brought to the notice of this Court. In the reported decision, this Court has considered the provisions of the Rules of 1967 while holding that the member of the market committee elected from the Village Panchayats Constituency would be deemed to have vacated the office of the market committee after he ceases to be the member of the village panchayat. In our view, only a person, whose name finds place in the voters list under Rule 36 of the Rules of 1967, could be elected as a member of the market committee under section 13(1)(a) and since the respondent nos.4 to 7 had ceased to be the members of the managing committee of the Agriculture Credit Societies and Village Panchayat, they also ceased to be the members of the market committee. 8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. It is hereby declared that the respondent nos.4 to 7 are disqualified as members of the market committee from the date on which they ceased to be the members of the managing committee of the Agriculture Credit Societies and the Village Panchayat. Consequently, they were not entitled to participate in the special meeting. Since by the order dated 29.05.2015, we had permitted the holding of the special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence and had directed that the votes be kept in a sealed cover in the custody of the respondent no.2SubDivisional Officer, Mouda, the Collector, Nagpur shall consider whether the requisition signed by some of the disqualified respondents, i.e. respondent nos.4 to 7 for calling the special meeting, would be valid or not, after hearing the parties concerned within a period of six weeks. If the Collector is of the opinion that the requisition would not be bad and the special meeting was rightly called, the Collector may proceed to declare the result of the election but, without considering the votes of the respondent nos.4 to 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.