VARVABHAI NATHABHAI RABARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.11.2001 passed by the learned single Judge of this court in Special Civil Application No.7443/2001.

(2.) The facts of the present case, in short, are as under : 2.1 An inquiry was made under section 44 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of complaint against irregularities and corruption and as an outcome of such inquiry report the State Government, in exercise of powers under section 46 of the Act, issued a notice to show cause as to why the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patan should not be superseded since as per the State Government, the Market Committee had made persistent defaults in performance of its duties and had abused its powers. The allegations made in the show cause notice were that (i) though the Labour Court did not pass any order, the Market Committee, on its own, made its employees permanent with effect from 1992 and not only that but paid the backwages of Rs. 14,11,822/-, (ii) without holding any public auction various pieces of land situated at Nutan Ambica Vegetable Sub-yard have been sold away at a price of Rs. 1,000/- per Sq.Mtr. It is also alleged in the show cause notice that though there was direction by the Director to get the valuation of the property made, no steps were taken by the Market Committee for getting valuation of the said property. It is also alleged in the show cause notice that the lands initially was allotted on lease basis at the rate of Rs.1/- per Sq.Mtr to the concerned traders holding shops adjacent to the land and thereafter the said lands were sold without holding any public auction and for the said actions the Director had issued direction 3 for taking back the possession of the land, but said direction was also not implemented, (iii) by allotting shops to the traders at Sardar Patel Vegetable Subyard at the rate of Rs.200/-p.m. with the development charges of Rs.41,000/-per shop, the Market Committee had caused loss to the funds of the Market Committee amounting to Rs. 17,42,130/-, (iv) though certain areas were already denotified and though it had come on the record of the Market Committee that the traders are dealing in denotified agricultural produce bodies unauthorisedly, no steps were taken for collection of market cess and thus unauthorised business were going on due to willful inaction on the part of the Market Committee, (v) the Director, Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance (hereinafter referred to as "the Director") had directed for giving two appointments on compassionate grounds to the legal heirs of the deceased, two deceased employees of the Market Committee by relieving last two junior most temporary employees that the said direction was not complied with. 2.2 In response to the said show cause notice of the State Government, the Market Committee had filed reply and it may be stated that at the stage of show cause notice the Market Committee had preferred Special Civil Application No.3662/01 on the ground that the principles of natural justice are not complied with since the copy of the inquiry report under section 44 of the Act is not supplied. However, in the said special civil application the learned single judge of this court had passed order dated 22.5.2001 whereby it was directed that the Market Committee may be permitted to inspect the report under section 44 of the Act and it may be permitted to take the extract of the said report, if it so chooses. It may be stated that against the said order dated 22.5.01 of the learned single Judge no appeal is preferred by the Market Committee and the market committee accepted the order and not only that but the inspection of the report was permitted by the State Government and the Market Committee was also permitted to take the relevant extract of the said report. 2.3 In reply to the show cause notice, the Market Committee had contended, interalia, that since a dispute regarding permanency benefit was raised by 8 employees, legal opinion was taken and it was decided to grant permanency benefit and to pay backwages. 2.4 In response to the second allegation of the show cause notice, it was contended by the Market Committee that since the land was appurtenant and the traders were occupying as per the leasehold rights the Market Committee found that no other buyer would come forward and therefore as per the valuation prevailing for the purpose of stamp duty (which is popularly known as 'Jantri') the lands have been sold to the traders who were having shops at the adjacent area. 2.5 In response to the third allegation of the show cause notice, it was contended that the earlier body had made attempts in the year 1996, as well as in the year 1994 to dispose of the shops to the traders. However, no trader in agricultural produce was coming forward for the purpose of occupying the shops nor they were offering the price fixed by the earlier body and therefore with a view to see that new Market starts functioning a practical solution was found and the shops were allotted at the rate of Rs.200/-per month by collecting the development charges of Rs.41,000/-per shop. 2.6 In response to the 4th allegation of the show cause notice, it was contended by the Market Committee that the Market Committee had taken effective steps to see that the traders may not deal in agricultural produce without obtaining licence or without payment of the market cess and it was contended by the Market Committee that they have filed number of prosecutions against the traders and they had also requested the police authorities for protection, but, the police authorities did not provide protection and therefore the ground of showing grace to the traders is illfounded. 2.7 As regards the 5th allegation of the show cause notice, it was, in substance, contended by the Market Committee that when the Market Committee wanted to terminate the services of Class II employees they preferred Special Civil Application No.3433/01 before this court and the matter was subjudice and therefore the direction could not be complied with. However, it is contended by the Market Committee that in any event before the final order of the State Government came to be passed the Market Committee had already made two appointments on compassionate grounds as directed by the Director and the aforesaid two employees who preferred writ petition are not relieved from service. 2.8 After considering the material on record the State Government had passed order on 13/18.8.2001 whereby it is found that there was no case before the Labour Court and the legal opinion was for conciliation under section 2(P) of Industrial Disputes Act. However, an urgent extraordinary meeting is called by the Market Committee on 8.4.2001 and decision is taken to grant permanency benefits with effect from 1992 and the backwages amounting to Rs.14,11,822/- are paid. 2.9 At this stage, though it is not a ground of the show cause notice, it may be stated that a statement was made at Bar by the learned Additional Advocate General that the amount of Rs.14,11,822/- is paid by drawing a cheque in the name of a single employee. It was also found by the State Government that the Director had issued direction for recovery of said amount, but the Market Committee did not recover the said amount on the ground that these employees have preferred Special Civil Application No.3575/2001 before the High Court and the matter is subjudice though the fact remains that no interim order has been passed by the High Court prohibiting recovery by the Market Committee from these employees. The State Government found that in view of this material on record it is clear that huge financial loss is caused to the Market Committee and the management has acted arbitrarily and the manner in which the payment is made shows financial loss caused intentionally to the Market Committee. 2.10. As regards second ground of the show cause notice it was found by the State Government that inspite of directions issued by the Director, no steps were taken by the Market Committee for getting back the possession of the land after the same was allotted on lease basis, but the Market Committee has, on the contrary, sold away the land without getting the valuation of the said land made by the approved valuer though it was specifically directed by the Director and that too without holding public auction, therefore it was found by the State Government that the Market Committee has not complied with the directions and the instructions issued by the Director and the irregularities are committed in the matter of disposal of the land of Nutan Vegetable Sub-Yard. 2.11 So far as the third ground of show cause notice is concerned, it was found by the State Government that the Market Committee has not got the valuation of the shops made as directed by the Director and had the proper steps been 5 taken by the Market Committee, such a huge financial loss would not have been caused to the Market Committee. 2.12 So far as the fourth ground of show cause notice is concerned, it was found by the State Government that after 1996 for a period of four years no steps are taken by the Market Committee for ensuring that the unauthorised trading of agricultural produce are not made and it was found by the State Government that it appears that with a view to take shelter in the matter of super-session the Special Civil Application No.3412/01 is preferred by the Market Committee, that too on 9.5.01 against non-supply of police protection for the purpose of stopping of unauthorised trading activities by the traders. 2.13 So far as the fifth ground of show cause notice is concerned, it was found by the State Government that even though no stay against termination has been granted by the High Court in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 3433/01 preferred by the employees, the Market Committee has not taken any steps and therefore the instructions of the Director are not complied with. 2.14 Ultimately, the State Government has found that various actions taken by the Marketing Committee shows that the instructions issued by the Director are not complied with and the management of the affairs of the Marketing Committee is arbitrary in performance of its duties and huge financial loss is caused to the Market Committee. It was also observed by the State Government that regarding the illegalities committed by the office bearers of the Market Committee a writ petition is preferred by certain persons being Public Interest Litigation and in the said petition this Court has directed for status quo, but it was found by the State Government that such status quo would not create a bar against the State Government in taking action against the Market Committee for supersession and ultimately the State Government passed the order for superseding the Market Committee and appointed the Administrator. 2.15 The appellants herein preferred writ petition which ultimately for the reasons recorded by the learned single judge has been dismissed against which the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) We have heard Mr.S.K.Zaveri, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Kamal B.Trivedi, Learned Addl.Advocate General with Mr.V.M.Pancholi, learned AGP for the respondents.