SHIVKUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Swami Saran, counsel for non-petitioners Nos. 3 and 5 has forcefully argued that there is no merit in petitioner's grievance because the irregularity complained has ben cured Is that so? Let us see.

(2.) THE petitioner is a member of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jora By Annexure p/10, which is resolution passed by the Samiti, his membership has been terminated in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 (xi) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj mandi (Adhisuchana Prakashan Riti, Bharasadhak Samiti Tatha Mandi Samiti gathan) Niyam, 1974, for short 'rules'. The question is, could that be done? Shri lahoti vehemently protests against the illegality committed by the Samiti, relying on the provisions of section 61 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, for short, 'the Act'. Let us read the concerned resolution No. 1 (A ). It appears that for certain journeys made by the petitioner, he was given some advance by the Samiti and he submitted T. A. bills for the same. It is stated therein that the notice dated 4-2-1984 was served on the petitioner, asking him to refund the amount, but he failed to comply therewith. There was a default in that regard and as such, the membership of the petitioner was terminated

(3.) WE extract the provisions of the aforesaid Rule 7 as also section 55 (1) and section 61 (2) of the Act, cited at the Bar.