TUKARAM NARAYANRAO KHANDEBHARAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) XRULE, heard forthwith, with the consent of the parties. Petitioner No. 1, who is the Chairman of the erstwhile Agricultural Produce Market Committee, deulgaon Raja (hereinafter called the Market committee for the sake of brevity), and petitioner No. 2, who is a member of the Managing committee of the said Market Committee, have filed this petition, praying for a writ to quash an order dated 24-12-1996 passed by the respondent no. 2-District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative societies, Buldhana (hereinafter called the DDR for the sake of brevity), superseding the Market committee under section 45 (1) of the Maharashtra agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act for the sake of brevity ).

(2.) THE Market Committee had assumed the charge on 19-6-1993 in pursuance of the elections held on 10-5-1993. The said elected Committee has ordinarily the life of five years, under section 14 (3) of the Act. A notice came to be given to the said Committee as required by section 45 (1) of the act. It was alleged in the said notice by the DDR that since there were complaints received by his office regarding the irregularities in the construction of Shopping Complex as also regarding the financial affairs of the Committee, a team was appointed for enquiring into the said matters and the said team of the enquiry had submitted the report of its investigations on 2nd March, 1996, after a thorough enquiry regarding the said complaints. So also the Assistant Engineer in his office had enquired into the affairs of the construction activity by checking and cross-checking the concerned record available in the office and had filed his report on 27-3-1996, and that on the basis of the said report, the DDR had come to the conclusion that the members of the committee, including the Chairman, Vice Chairman and the Directors had misused and abused their positions and had also committed financial irregularities. The said notice is exhaustive and number of allegations have been made in the same. It was alleged that though the shopping complex involved the expenditure of Rs. 19,52,170. 00, the tenders were not properly published and they were deliberately published in the insignificant newspapers. There were number of irregularities committed in the matter of the tender notice, which was published again. It was alleged that though the revised proposal of Rs. 34,04,295. 00 was passed, the Market Committee deliberately published the tender-notice as per the old rates and that too in the insignificant newspapers. It was alleged that though Shri Agrawal was prepared to construct 2% below the tender rate, the said contract was awarded in favour of one Shri Pathak whose tender was 4?% above the tender rate. It was also pointed out that the said contractor, Shri pathak, was not even qualified to undertake the constructions of such high value as he was a registered contractor having the classification of

(3.) THE notice was served on 16th July, 1996. It seems that there is a marathon explanation by the Market Committee, wherein the said charges were denied. There are number of admissions given in this explanation. The Market Committee asserted that there were no irregularities in the constructions. It was admitted that the contractor had used grey tiles instead of white-tiles, but that fault was attributed by the Committee to the contractor. It was asserted that the standard material was used and the test-reports were also available. It was admitted that in view of the urgency, the amount was withdrawn from the provident Fund Accounts of the employees. In respect of the other charges, it was pointed out that some irregularities were attributable to the secretary of the Market Committee. In short, the committee tried to justify its action. It was specifically denied that the borewell had enough water supply and, therefore, amounts spent for purchase of water were justified. The Committee also justified the expenditure made for diaries, repairs work for the godown at Deulgaon Mahi etc. , and also justified its action in withdrawal of the case on the ground that the said case was rightly withdrawn owing to the existing legal position. They further justified the keeping of the amounts as also the expenditures incurred on the vehicles and the telephones.