DILIPBHAI C. NATHVANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Ex-Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kalavad ( APMC for short) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the action on the part of the Administrator of respondent No.3 Committee in initiating process of grant of new licenses for the year 2012-13 and to quash and set aside order dated 2.6.2012 passed by respondent No.3 whereby one Shri PI Jadeja, Inspector, Market Committee- Kalavad (Shitla) was asked to make scrutiny in respect of the applications made for licenses and to submit his report. The petitioner has also prayed to issue writ of prohibition restraining respondent No.3 from taking any policy decision in the management and the affairs of the APMC.

(2.) The petitioner has given history about different litigations against the Market Committee and alleged that though the term of the APMC was to expire on 24.6.2011 and though he made representation dated 2.2.2011 requesting respondent No.2, Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance to initiate process of election before expiry of the term of the body, the concerned authorities since delayed the holding of elections, the petitioner had to prefer Special Civil Application No. 2872 of 2011 before this Court seeking direction to hold elections of the APMC, Kalavad and for restraining them from appointing administrator. It is further averred that even after this court issued notice, the concerned authorities issued notice to the market committee under section 46 of the Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 ( the Act for short) to show cause as to why the elected body of the Market Committee should not be superseded. The petitioner has also alleged that another petitions being Special Civil Application No.4075 of 2011 with Special Civil Application No. 4078 of 2011 were filed against the show cause notice under sec. 46 of the Act and because of the said proceedings, the show cause notice was not proceeded. The petitioner has averred that in the Special Civil Application No. 2872 of 2011, the Hon ble Division Bench directed the State Government to first decide under section 11(4) (aa) of the Act as to whether to extend the term of the elected body and then to pass order under sec. 11(5)(a) for appointment of the administrator by reasoned order. The State Government decided not to extend the term of the elected body and consequentially on 28.7.2011, the State Government appointed administrator for respondent No.3 Market Committee. The above orders were challenged by filing Special Civil Application No. 9704 of 2011 before this Court wherein this Court directed the State Authorities to hold elections of the APMC, Kalavad within three months from the date of the order. This Court also directed that the administrator shall not enroll any new member nor shall send any information to the authorities against any member. It is further averred that by virtue of the above said order, the administrator was restrained from enrolling any new member for issuing any fresh licenses. The petitioner has also averred that the order passed by this Court directing to hold election within three months came to be challenged by Shri Haripar Seva Sahakari Mandali by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No.15526 of 2011 and the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition after recording the statement of the learned advocate appearing for the Market Committee for not issuing any license in the context of voters for elections. The petitioner has made reference of other petitions filed by the persons from the agriculture constituency of Jamnagar District Cooperative Bank and other persons who had filed petitions before this court challenging action of the authorized officers of exclusion of their names from the voters list and filing of SLP (C) 35638 of 2011 against judgment and order passed in those matters wherein Hon ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 15.12.2011 stayed elections of the APMC, Kalavad. The petitioner has lastly averred that the clear statement was made on behalf of the State authorities including respondent no.3 not to issue any new licenses and not to cancel current licenses and to maintain status quo as prevailing then. It is on the above premises, the petitioner has asked for the above reliefs.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the administrator of respondent no.3 by filing affidavit in reply stating that he is functioning as administrator under the statutory provisions of the Act and he is entitled to exercise all powers available to the Market Committee. He has made clear statement on oath that the grant of licenses and renewal of licenses will not entitle the licensee to be voter for the election of the APMC for which this Court has directed to hold the elections.