SHANKARRAO GAJANAN CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Minister of Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles in the proceedings under Rule 41(5) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (for short, 'the Rules of 1967'). By the said order, the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the District Deputy Registrar disqualifying the petitioners from continuing as Members of the Market Committee has been confirmed.

(3.) The facts in brief are that all the petitioners were elected Members of the Market Committee constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short, 'the said Act'). The term for which the petitioners were elected ended on 20.10.2015. In the subsequent elections the petitioners were again elected as Members of the Market Committee. After the petitioners were elected for the subsequent term, an application under Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of the Rules of 1967 was moved by one Wasimoddin Matinoddin on 25.07.2017. In that application a grievance was made with regard to the appointment of two employees in a manner contrary to the provisions of Rule 100(5) of the Rules of 1967. It was prayed that the petitioners be held to be disqualified from continuing as Members of the Market Committee. A similar application under the very same provisions seeking identical relief was earlier moved by one Atish Bidwe on 12.06.2017. The petitioners submitted their reply to the aforesaid proceedings. In the said proceedings, the third respondent moved an application praying that he be added as a party in the said proceedings as applicant no.3. The said application came to be allowed. The District Deputy Registrar by his order dated 22.12.2017 was pleased to hold that though the grievance as made in the applications related to the earlier term of the petitioners as Members, since the employees in question continued in employment and the petitioners were re-elected as Members they were liable to be disqualified under the provisions of Section 45(1) of the said Act read with Rule 41(1) of the Rules of 1967. The order passed by the District Deputy Registrar was challenged by the petitioners in this Court and by the judgment dated 08.01.2018 in Writ Petition No.8283 of 2017 [Shankarrao Gajanan Choudhary and Others Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others] the said order was set aside observing that no notice seeking their disqualification/removal under Section 45 of the said Act had been given to them. The proceedings were therefore remanded to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration.