PRABHU DAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has called in question the order dated 21.7.2011 (Annx.P/6), by which in place of the nominated Committee, Tahsildar Chourai has been appointed as Officer Incharge of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Chourai, and has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashment of Notification dated 21.7.2011 (Annx.P/7) in so far as it relates to appointment of Tahsildar Chourai as Officer Incharge of Krishi Upaj Mandi Chourai. It is the contention of the petitioner that earlier there was one composite Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (hereinafter referred to as Mandi for short) constituted under the provisions of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) for Amarwada and Chourai. The elections of the said Mandi were held and the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the said composite Mandi and other members were also elected. However, the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 70 of the Act, decided to alter the area of the said Mandi, splitting up Mandi in two different Mandis one for Amarwada and one for Chourai. For the purposes of constituting the said split up Mandi Chourai, elections were required to be held, but since there was an intention expressed by the State Government in this respect, the election of the Mandi which was due in the year 2010 were postponed. The Notification in this respect was issued on 1.5.2010. The elections were further postponed by Notification dated 4.11.2010. Again the State Government exercised the power under Section 57 of the Act and postponed the election of the Mandi upto May 2012. However, as there was splitting up of Mandi and two different Mandis were constituted in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Act, the Notification was issued on 7.12.2010 and a Committee Incharge was constituted by the State Government and the petitioner being the earlier elected President of the consolidated Mandi was nominated as President of the said Committee Incharge. The said Committee was to remain in operation till the fresh election of the Mandi is held and an elected body of Mandi is constituted. However, in a complete ignorance of the Law, the order impugned was issued pursuance to the Notification dated 21.7.2011 and in place of the Committee Incharge, an Officer Incharge, the Tahsildar of Chourai has been appointed to function in the Mandi at Chourai. According to the petitioner, such an action is bad in law and, therefore, the Notification as also the order passed in this respect are bad in law and are liable to be quashed.

(2.) REFUTING the allegations made by the petitioner, return has been filed by the respondent No.2. Learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, has vehemently contended that the interpretation as has been done by the petitioner with respect to the constitution of the Committee Incharge is totally misconceived. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate General that in fact the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Act are to be read harmoniously along with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. It is contended that since the Committee Incharge was constituted from amongst the members of the earlier Committee, therefore, their term was fixed as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. It is contended that the tenure of a Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members of the Market Committee is only for a period of five years from the date of first meeting of the Market Committee which could be extended for a period of one ear by granting extension of six months each on two occasions in case the elections are not held or could not be held. In case the elections are not held even after the extended period, only the Officer Incharge is required to be appointed as per the provisions of Section 57 of the Act. It is contended that since the election of the Mandi was not held and it was postponed in exercise of powers conferred on the State Government, the Notification was rightly issued in consequence of such circumstances under Section 57 of the Act and an Officer Incharge has rightly been appointed. It is contended that if this is examined from the angles aforesaid, the claim of the petitioner is totally misconceived and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the splitting up of the Mandi earlier compositely constituted for two areas has taken place after the period of tenure of the elected body of composite Mandi had completed. The State Government has extended the period for holding the elections by issuing the Notification. It was open to the State Government to dissolve the elected body and to appoint an Officer Incharge of the Mandi as per the provisions of Section 57 of the Act at that time. Instead of doing this, exercising the power under Section 57-A of the Act, the State Government has postponed the election of Mandis upto the month of May 2012. In between the order was issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 70 of the Act splitting up the composite Mandi in two different Mandi for two different areas. Consequently, it was necessary for the State Government to constitute a Committee for the purposes of looking after the work of split up and newly constituted Mandis. For the said purposes, Notification was issued on 7.12.2010. Thus, it was a totally different action which was taken under subsection (2) of Section 72 of the Act. This power was to be exercised only in the circumstances when action was taken under Section 70 of the Act, by which the intention of the State Government was shown to split up a Market Committee or to constitute two or more Market Committees. This particular aspect is dealt with in Chapter- XII of the Act separately, whereas, the constitution of the Committee on its first Notification by holding election is prescribed in Chapter-Ill of the Act. The appointment of Officer Incharge pending constitution of first Market Committee is prescribed under Section 10 of the Act in Chapter-III which is totally different than that of a specific provision made in Chapter-XII of the Act. The contingencies are totally different. The first constitution of the Committee is prescribed under Section 7 of the Act for which the provisions are made under the said Chapter. If the intention of the Legislature: was to make prescription of the very same provision for split up or bifurcated Market Committees, instead of prescribing constitution of a Committee Incharge, the legislature itself would have prescribed appointment of Officer 'Incharge in such a circumstances in Chapter-XII of the Act and specifically under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Act. Since this was never intended by the legislature to appoint an Officer Incharge in such a contingency where already an existing Mandi is split up in two, specific provision is made for appointment of a Committee Incharge till the constitution of the split up Committee by holding election of office bearer.