UDHAV SHALIKRAM GEETE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner, an elected Director of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 12th of August, 2013 issued by the District Deputy Registrar, appointing the Administrator. The submission of the petitioner is that the elections of the APMC had taken place in 2008 and the first meeting of the APMC was held on 18th of July, 2008 and the APMC was constituted for five years as provided under section 14(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1963") and the term of the APMC has come to an end on 17th of July, 2013. The petitioner has stated that he had issued communication dated 8th of July, 2013 to the respondents requesting them to conduct the elections of the Board of Directors. In reply, it was informed that in view of the Notification dated 8th of February, 2013, the term of the APMC was extended for six months from the date of the Notification i.e. from 8th of February, 2013. The petitioner has stated that the Hon'ble Members of the Legislative Assembly of Amravati District had made representation dated 31st of July, 2013 to the Hon'ble Minister Agricultural and Marketing and to the Guardian Minister of Amravati District requesting for appointment of the Administrator on the A.P.M.C. The petitioner has stated that the appointment of the Administrator on the APMC is illegal, as the extension of six months has to be treated from 18th of July, 2013 and the Administrator could not have been appointed on 12th of August, 2013.

(3.) Shri Ingole, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the APMC has taken appropriate steps to see that the elections are conducted on time and there is no fault on its part for delay in holding the elections. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported in : , Babasaheb Apparao Akat and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2010 4 MhLJ 360and submitted that the appointment of the Administrator straightway is not justified and the respondent-State was under an obligation to exercise its power under the second proviso to section 14(3) of the Act of 1963 and to grant the extension of six months from 18th of July, 2013.