CHAUDHARI VISABHAI KARMSIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Neeraj Ashar waives service of Rule for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Though notice was served to the Market Committee -respondent No.4, nobody appeared and since it is a formal party, Rule was not issued to it. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the petition was taken up for final disposal.

(2.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are elected members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Harij - respondent No.4, have challenged the order dated 10.9.2013 passed by respondent No.1 -State of Gujarat through its Joint Secretary (Appeal), Agricultural and Co -operation Department, under Section 46 of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) removing the office bearers of the Market Committee - the petitioners and appointing the District Registrar, Patan as Administrator of the Market Committee.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that the election of the Market Committee was held on 24.3.2011 and they were elected in such election for which a notification under Rule 27 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 ('the Rules' for short) was issued. It is alleged in the petition that one Shri Samirbhai Bhupendrabhai Thakkar lost in the said election and he as also one Shri Karamsibhai Mevabhai had preferred election petitions, being Appeal Nos.110 of 2011 and 111 of 2011 and the said appeals were allowed and the election of the petitioners was set aside. Such orders passed in the appeals were challenged by the petitioners before this Court and this Court set aside the orders passed in appeals by observing that the election of the returned candidates could not have been set aside without recording the reasons required for setting aside the election. The petitioners have further alleged that the State Authorities then initiated inquiry under Section 44 of the Act at the behest of said Samirbhai and the District Registrar without considering the stand of the Market Committee gave one sided report, based on which, the Director -respondent No.2 sent proposal dated 16.8.2012 for initiating proceedings under Section 46 of the Act.