PANDURANG EKNATH KHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel; Dr. Naik for the petitioners and Shri Apte, Addl. Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10.

(2.) THIS petition is by the members of the Pune Agricultural Produce Market Committee respondent No. 4 - which is a body corporate constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short "the Marketing Act") and the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (for short "the Marketing Rules") framed under the said Act. Petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 26th March, 1998 superceding the Market Committee, which order has been passed by respondent No. 5, in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the said Act. The said provision empowers the State Government to supercede the Market Committee which is either not competent to perform or persistently makes defaults in performing the duties imposed on it under the Act or abuses its powers or wilfully disregards any instructions issued by the State Government. Show cause notice was issued on 11th December, 1997 setting out as many as 21 serious charges of defalcation of crores of rupees and gross abuse of the powers. The petitioners gave their replies on 27th January, 1998 and 9th February 1998. The State Marketing Board respondent No. 3 was consulted in accordance with the requirements of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 45 and after considering the entire material on record charge-wise findings have been recorded and an order of supersession has been passed on 26th March, 1998, which is the subject matter of this petition.

(3.) WE may briefly indicate the serious charges that have been held proved against the petitioners, members of the Market Committee. Charge 1 relates to the expenditure incurred to the tune of Rs. 3. 46 crores for construction of banana market as against the sanctioned estimate of Rs. 1. 61 crores. The excess expenditure is without a prior budgetary provision and the Market Committee had borrowed Rs. 4. 60 crores for the construction. The prior permission of the Director of Marketing as required by section 12 (1) of the Marketing Act, was not obtained for the additional expenditure which was unauthorised and unjustified. The explanation tendered by the Committee has been found to be wholly unsatisfactory. The second charge related to giving of an advance of Rs. 3,01,909. 80 to the weighmen. The weighmen are not the employees of the Market Committee and there is no provision under the Marketing Act or Rules for giving such an advance. No steps have been taken for recovery of the said amount. Thus, the market funds have been used for a purpose which was not permissible by law. Charge 3 relating to the appointment of an internal auditor has been dropped. Charge No. 4 relates to the sale of petrol on credit from the petrol pump belonging to the Market Committee to the extent of Rs. 46,93,000/- though the earlier dues to the tune of Rs. 28,70,836/- were recoverable. There was no justification for giving individual credit and these transactions have resulted in loss to the Market Committee to the tune of Rs. 12. 10 lacs. This is apart from the earlier loss of Rs. 8. 4 lacs in the petrol pump account. The fifth charge relates to the leasing of the plots, galas and shops of the Market Committee without entering into any agreements. Since the necessary documents were not executed, it was not possible to ascertain as to how much amount the Committee actually received, how much amount was actually credited and how much was the balance recoverable from the lessees. Similarly the Market Committee allowed improper transfers of the plots, shops or galas and while deciding the lease rent the valuation of the property was not properly considered resulting in loss to the Market Committee. Charge No. 6 relates to the unauthorised expenditure on advertisements. Charge No. 7 relates to the purchase of stationary and printing material without inviting tenders even once. The purchases are made from certain persons only. Charge No. 8 relates to an advance of Rs. 3. 60 lacs given to the centre for Co-operative Marketing for a foreign tour three years back, out of which amount, Rs. 1. 86 lacs has not yet been recovered. No steps were taken for recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,86,000/ -.