KALUBHAI VIRANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction directing the respondents to declare and hold election of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Savarkundala (hereinafter referred to "the Market Committee" for short) as per the provisions of the law. By way of amendment it is also prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction quashing and setting aside the resolution dated 25/9/2013 passed by the State Government appointing administrator in the APMC Savarkundala (Anneure -C) and to restore the elected body till fresh election of the member of the APMC Savarkundala is held.

(2.) THAT the APMC Savarkundala is constituted / required to be constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) and the Rules framed thereunder. That the last election of the market committee was held on 23/9/2009. That the term of the office of the elected members of the market committee shall save as otherwise provided in the Act, be four years from the date of its first general meeting as per the provisions of section 11(4) of the Act. That despite the fact that the term of the market committee was to expire on 23/9/2013, as the first meeting of the elected body was 24/9/2009, no steps were taken to declare election of the market committee and it was apprehended that the State Government may appoint administrator instead of holding the fresh election, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) MR .Vijay Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the State Government / Director in not declaring and holding the election of the market committee though the term of the market committee has expired as far as back on 23/9/2013 and in appointing administrator in the market committee is absolutely illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules and even democratic principles. It is submitted that as per sub -section (4) of section 11 of the Act, as such the term of the office of the elected members of the market committee shall be 4 years from the date of its first general meeting. It is submitted that as such before the term of the market committee expires on completion of four years, the Director was required to declare and hold the election. It is further submitted that therefore the Director is required to declare the election by issuing an order in writing as required under rule 4 of the Rules. It is further submitted by Mr.Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that not to hold the election after the term of the market committee has expired and to appoint an administrator is against the democratic principles. It is submitted that as such the action of the respondent authorities in not declaring and holding the election of the members of the market committee is malafide and at the behest of the local MLA and only with a view to see that power is not retained by the elected members of the market committee.