DURGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A duly elected market committee has been ordered to be superseded by the Director of Mandis in exercise of the power conferred by Section 56 of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mindi Adhiniyam 1973 (hereinafter, the Act for short). Three members of the committee have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court complaining gross violation of the principles of natural justice and exercise of drastic statutory power on msy, and non existent grounds, tantamounting to malicious action at law. It is indeed a strange feature of the case that Rajnarayan and B.P., Singh, two of the members of the superseded committee have sought for intervention, not to support the petitioners but to support the order of supersession. However, the intervention was allowed inasmuch as this Court was of the opinion the members of the superseded committee do have an interest is the matter entitling them to an undeniable right of hearing when the life of the committee constituted by them was at stake. The Director of Mandis and the State of M. P., in their return have opposed the petition and strongly supported the order of supersession. We proceed to notice the relevant facts.

(2.) ON 3 -8 -89, the Director issued a show cause notice (Annex. P/1) stating the "irregularities" said to have been committed by the committee during its tenure. In substance, the irregularities stated in the notice were: - -

(3.) BEFORE we proceed further, to examine the law and the relevant legal issues, let it also be noted that the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, and relied on by the Director for finding the order of supersession consisted of 15 charges of which 9, as already noticed, did not form part of the show cause notice (Annex. P/1). In o her words, the superseded committee did not have any opportunity of hearing in respect of some of the charges forming foundation of the order of supersession. Let it also be placed on record that the members of the superseded Market Committee, specially the petitioners, were not party, collectively or individually to the proceedings of the enquiry. The enquiry report, that is, the result of the enquiry proceedings, conducted behind the back of the petitioners, not even substance thereof was made available to the petitioners though it was relied on by the Director for forming an opinion that the supersession of the Market committee was preeminently warranted. The power of supersession of the governing bodies called by different names is to be found incorporated in several statutes governing Agricultural Market Committees, Municipalities panchayats, Co operative Societies & all democratic bodies. The object behind, broadly speaking is to prevent usurpation and abuse of powers at the hands of such bodies, which by their action or inaction, convincingly demonstrate that they were incapable of fulfilling the trust reposed in them by their electors. The power of supersession is a drastic one, to be utilised in exceptional cases alone, indeed within the four corners of law and not merely at the askance nor for extraneous considerations and never for achieving political ends. Section 56 (1) of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, reads as under : - -