JAGANNATH PRASAD Vs. COLLECTOR BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third petition challenging the no-confidence motion dt.12-4-84 passed against the petitioner as the Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bilaspur.

(2.) Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee, Bilaspur, is a body corporate under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973. The petitioner was duly elected its Chairman. A no-confidence motion was passed against him on 12-4-1984. The motion was carried by 8 votes against none. The no-confidence resolution was challenged by the petitioner in his earlier petition M.P. No.999/84, contending that the total number of members of the Mandi Committee were said to be 16 members but it might be 18 because constituencies of 5 M.L.A.'s and not 3 came within the market area of the Committee, as per S.11 of the Adhiniyam. Under S.14, the no-confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting and such majority is more than one-half of the total number of members constituting the market committee, for the time being. So even if the committee had 16 members, at least 9 members should have been present and voted in favour of the resolution. Since the Presiding Officer alone was made a party and not the Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee, one member intervened to oppose the petition. It was contended that there were in all 16 members including 3 and not 5 M.L.A.'s and in support produced a memo of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Dt.6-10-79. It was pointed out that for the time being there were 15 members as one of its constituents i.e.Co-operative Marketing Committee, Bilaspur had not nominated its representative to the Mandi Committee. As such the no-confidence motion has been validly passed under S.14. By order dt.20-9-84 this Court dismissed the petition holding that for the time being there were 15 members and the no-confidence motion was validly passed. The special leave petition No.11736/84 preferred by the petitioner against the order of this Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7-11-84. The petitioner then filed an application for review of the aforesaid order of this Court on the basis of a letter of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bilaspur that in the Mandi Committee there are 5 and not 3 M.L.As. The review application was dismissed as devoid of substance by this Court on 23-11-84 as the only point argued in the petition was as to whether there were 16 or 15 members. Thereafter one Radheshyam Shukla, M.L.A. filed another petition M.P.No.3630/84 challenging the no-confidence motion dt 12-4-84 on the ground that 5 M.L.As were included in membership of the committee and the no-confidence motion was not passed by more than half of the members for the time being of the Mandi Committee. That petition was also dismissed by this Court on 2-1-85, holding that this ground was available to the ex-chairman (the present petitioner) in M.P.No.999/84 but it was not raised by him although the no-confidence motion was passed against him.

(3.) One Manoharalal Shende was elected new Chairman of the Mandi Committee on 31-12-1984. The petitioner then filed this third petition on 21-1-85, challenging the no-confidence motion dt.12-4-1984, the above mentioned memo of the Deputy Director and the election of the said Manoharlal as the new Chairman, by producing another memo of the Deputy Director, Agriculture that the Mandi Committee membership should be 18 including 5 M.L.As. and the Collector is being moved to issue necessary notification under S.11 of the Adhiniyam and that the earlier petition was dismissed on fraudulent representation about the total member of membership of the Mandi Committee. After filing of this petition, the petitioner has been expelled from the membership of the Mandi Committee by resolution dt.7-2-1985. The petition is opposed by the Mandi Committee saying that the memo of the Director is not a notification under S.11 and as such it has no value. The matter is concluded by the earlier decision dt.20-9-84 in M.P.No.999/84. The learned Government Advocate pointed out that the term of the present Mandi Committee is due to expire and election programme has been announced, fixing the date of election of the new body as 16-9-85 and so this petition has become infructuous.