PIMPLA LOKHANDE SHETKARI DHANYA ADHIKOSH SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD. PIMPLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MARKETING DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners are the 15 Co-operative Societies, registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act, 1960) read with the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short Rules, 1961). They are functioning within the market area for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Purna, District Parbhani (for short APMC, Purna), the respondent No.6. They claim that they have been duly classified as Agricultural Credit Societies and Multipurpose Co-operative Societies within the meaning of the Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. The term of APMC, Purna having expired, elections to constitute new committee have been scheduled to be held. A list of provisional voters was prepared vide Notification dated 24/11/2016 and was published on 25/11/2016 by respondent No.4, the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Parbhani. The names of the petitioner Societies, however, were not included in the provisional voters list. All of them, therefore, raised an objection, contending that they fulfilled the criteria of Sec. 13(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short the APMC Act). An enquiry committee was constituted by the respondent No.4 to verify the correctness or otherwise of the contention of the petitioner Societies. The enquiry committee consisted of three members, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (respondent No.5) and two Co-operative Officers of Grade I of the Co-operative Societies. The enquiry committee made an enquiry and submitted a report that the petitioner Societies fulfilled all the conditions of Sec. 13(1)(a)(i) of the APMC Act and, therefore, recommended that their names be included in the final voters list. The recommendation of the enquiry committee, however, was turned down by respondent No.4. The respondent No.4, thus, without the names of the petitioner Societies, published the final voters list on 25/1/2017. The petitioner Societies have a common grievance against exclusion of their names in the final voters list prepared for constituting market committee of APMC, Purna and for its redressal, have approached this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that, under Sec. 13(1)(a)(i), a market committee must consist, interalia, of 11 agriculturists, who must be elected by members of the managing committees of the Agricultural Credit Societies and Multipurpose Co-operative Societies, functioning in the market area of the concerned APMC. He submits that, this Sec. denotes as to who could be the voters entitled to elect 11 agriculturists. He further submits that, the expression shall be elected by members of the Managing Committees of the Agricultural Credit Societies and Multipurpose Co-operative Societies (within the meaning of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the rules made thereunder) is significant and has to be understood by its natural meaning. He further submits that, this expression essentially prescribes a qualification as to who could be a voter for electing the 11 agriculturists on the market committee of an agricultural produce market committee. He further submits that, this electorate, as indicated by the plain language of the Sec. comprises agricultural credit societies as well as multipurpose cooperative societies and the Sec. does not require that a registered society should be an agricultural credit society as well as a multipurpose co-operative society at one and the same time. According to him, it is enough for a registered society to be an agricultural credit society or a multipurpose co-operative society in order to be entitled to vote for the 11 agriculturists. He further submits that, the word and appearing in the expression would have to be understood as in addition to and not in combination of the society previously referred to in the expression. He also submits that, if this was not so, the said expression would not have contained such words as agricultural credit societies and multipurpose co-operative societies and it would have been enough to describe the electorate by a common expression such as agricultural credit multipurpose co-operative societies