AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, DHARNI AND OTHERS Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dharni and its Chairman Prakashchandra Khandelwal have by this petition, challenged the order of supersession of the Market Committee under section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1%3 (the Act).

(2.) A show cause notice dated 17 -7 -1984 was issued to the Market Committee. The reply to the show cause notice was ordered to be given on or before 9 -8 -1984. A copy of the show cause notice was given to the Federation of the Market Committees referred to in section 44 of the Act and the said Federation was also called upon to give the reply if any, failing which it would be presumed that the Federation had nothing to say in the matter. A reply to the show cause notice was given by the Market Committee. Federation gave no reply. After considering the reply of the Committee and the other material placed on record, the order of supersession dated 17 -1 -1985 came to be passed.

(3.) THIS takes us to the first point. Proviso has been added by amending Act No. 2 of 1977 and the language used leaves no scope to doubt mandatory nature of requirement of consultation. Use of the word "shall" in the context is significant and does not permit it to be read as "may". In this connection, our attention was invited by the learned Asstt. Government Pleader Shri Deshbhratar to the Division Bench decision in the case of Karbhari Govindrao Patil and another v. B. D. Pawar and others ( : 1976 Mh. L J. 841) in which case, section 78 of the Maharashtra Co -operative Societies Act dealing with supersession of societies fell for consideration. It reads thus: