LAWS(BOM)-1999-10-34

JAISINGH VITHOBA GIRASE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On October 29, 1999
JAISINGH VITHOBA GIRASE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the proceedings of the no confidence motion dated 30-9-1998 expressed against them while the petitioners were the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of Agricultural Produce Market Committee Dondaicha, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner in writ petition No. 4617 of 1998 was Vice-Chairman of the said market committee while the petitioner in writ petition No. 4621 of 1998 was the Chairman of the said Market Committee. On 18-9-1998, twelve members of the said Market Committee submitted a requisition to the Collector, Dhule, to call a special meeting of the said market committee to express no confidence motion against both the petitioners under Section 23a of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The separate requisition in respect of each of the petitioner was submitted. On the basis of these requisitions, the Collector by this order dated 24-7-1998 directed that the meeting of the members of the said market committee shall be called on 30-9-1998 at about 12. 00 noon at the office of the said market committee and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirpur was appointed to preside over the said meeting. In consonance with the same on 24-9-1998 itself, a notice was issued to both the petitioners stating that the requisition dated 18-9-1998 under S. 23a of the said Act has been filed with him and the special meeting has been fixed on 30-9-1998 at 12-00 noon at the office of the said market committee which will be presided over by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shirpur. It is mentioned in the said intimation that the separate notice of the meeting is being sent to the petitioners. On 24-9-1998 itself the Collector issued the separate notice to both the petitioners informing them that the special meeting of the market committee has been scheduled on 30-9-1998 at 12. 00 noon to express no confidence motion against the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the said Market Committee and requested both the petitioners to attend the said meeting. This notice was accompanied with the requisition submitted by the requisitionists. In accordance with the said notice special meeting of the said market committee was held on 30-9-1998 which was presided over by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shirpur and 13 persons were present in the said meeting. However, one Shri M. C. Padavi was the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies and even though he is the member of the said committee was not entitled to vote in the said meeting and accordingly has not voted in the said meeting. Therefore the resolution was passed in the said meeting by 12 persons. There was no one in the meeting to oppose the said resolutions passed against each of the petitioners. The said market committee consists of 17 members and out of 17 members, 12 members have expressed no confidence, and therefore, the motion was declared to have been passed against both the petitioners namely the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the said market committee which was passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members (excluding the members who have no right to vote ). The petitioners have challenged this act of expressing the no confidence motion against them.

(3.) SO far as the Vice-Chairman Shri Jaysinha Girase is concerned, he has received the notice of no confidence motion along with the requisition and the intimation as stated earlier. Therefore, the ground of challenge by the Vice-Chairman does not cover the ground of non-service of the notice of the special meeting. As far as Chairman Gulabrao Patil who is the petitioner in writ petition No. 4621 of 1998 is concerned, amongst all other common grounds, he has challenged the meeting on the ground of non-service of notice of no confidence motion to him. Therefore, according to the Chairman, the meeting is vitiated because the notice of the said meeting was not served on him.