NILKANTH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assail the action of respondent no.1 dissolving Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Sengaon, District Hingoli and also the order appointing Administrator over the A.P.M.C., Sengaon.

(2.) The petitioners are elected members of the A.P.M.C., Sengaon. The term of the Managing Committee commenced on 21.09.2015 and is for five years that is upto 20.09.2020. The petitioner no.1 is the Chairman of the A.P.M.C., Sengaon. The members of the opposite group tendered their resignations. The respondent no. 3 District Deputy Registrar reported the vacancies in the A.P.M.C., Sengaon to respondent no.1 and requested to hold byelections or to nominate the member to fill up the vacancies as per Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") under letter dated 23.08.2018. However, respondent no.1 passed the impugned order directing dissolution of the A.P.M.C., Sengaon. The said order is passed without notice to petitioners and without hearing them.

(3.) Mr. Bagal, learned counsel submits that there is no provision in the Act, 1963 conferring power of dissolution upon the State Government. In an eventuality, when the vacancies are created due to resignation, Section 16(2) of the Act, 1963 mandates nomination or by elections. The learned counsel further submits that No Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner no.1. The Motion failed and upon failure of No Confidence Motion, 9 members submitted cyclostyled resignations. The learned counsel submits that only recourse open to the respondents is to fill in vacancies by conducting by elections and not by dissolution. The petitioners are democratically elected members of the A.P.M.C., Sengaon. They have right to continue till the end of their term. A democratically elected body cannot be divested of their powers in such a manner. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India vs. K.S. Jagannathan reported in (1986) 4 CPSC 91 and submits that this Court can exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondent-authority to exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Statute or Rule. The respondents be directed to conduct by elections of the vacant posts by setting aside the order of dissolution of the A.P.M.C., Sengaon. The learned counsel further relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.76 of 2006 dated 20.12.2006 and submits that the respondents should have directed by elections. Those who have not resigned have mandate of the electorate and the powers conferred upon them cannot be lightly taken away by the impugned order. The principles of natural justices have been flouted.