Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 909 (MP)

Shamsher Singh Uppal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-09-15

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2020
JUDGMENT Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.12.2018 Annexure-P/3 by which he has been removed from the post of Vice Chairman of the Madhya Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred as "Mandi Board"). 2. It is stated that the aforesaid order is contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred as "Adhiniyam"). Provisions of Section 42 reads as under: "Section 42. Term of Office of Vice-President and Members. - (1) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, the Vice-President or a member of Board other than ex-officio member, shall hold office for a term of three years from the date of his nomination : Provided that the Vice-President or a member shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enter upon his office. (2) The term of office of a member of the Board shall come to an end as soon as he ceases to hold the office by virtue of which he was nominated. (3) The State Government may if it thinks fit remove any member of the Board before the expiry of his term of office, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order is in violation of sub-section (3) of Section 42 as before passing of the order of the removal neither show cause notice nor any reasonable opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. 4. The respondents have filed a short reply. In the said reply, they stated that there is a delay in filing the petition as the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.12.2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Vice President of Mandi Board, therefore, he has been removed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The delay in challenging the impugned order has been explained by the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent no.1 on 26.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred to the hospital on 15.01.2019. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The delay in challenging the impugned order has been explained by the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent no.1 on 26.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred to the hospital on 15.01.2019. The petitioner developed a lump on his chest which was detected in the month of February, 2019, thereafter, the petitioner had to endure a major surgery for removal of the lump. Thereafter, the petitioner was advised a month's rest from 25.02.2019 to 27.03.2019. It is further stated that the petitioner developed some problem in his eyes and later advised to undergo operation. On 28.03.2019, the petitioner undergone cataract surgery. 7. In view of aforesaid, I find that the petitioner has explained the delay and laches in not challenging the order impugned dated 19.12.2018. The petition has been filed on 14.06.2020. 8. On merit it is noted that the order of removal has been passed under Section 42 and no reason has been assigned in the order. It is only stated that in view of the exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of Section 42 service of the petitioner is removed. The order reads as under: 9. As per sub-section (3) of Section 42, before passing an order of the removal of any member of the Board before the expiry of his term of office, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the same has been provided. 10. In the present case, admittedly neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 42 of Adhiniyam. Further no reason has been assigned for removal of the petitioner from the office of Vice Chairman of the Board. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. However, the liberty is granted to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.