DEVENDRA KUMAR KESHARVANI Vs. SATYANARAYAN SINGH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Devendra Kumar in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is challenging the legality of the impugned orders, dated 7-5-1989 (Annexure-I), passed by the Addl. Collector, Sagar in appeal No. 19-B/128-year 1985-86 holding, that on scrutiny of the nomination paper of Devendra Kumar on 17-10-1985 it was found that he was not holding licences from the Market Committee for a period of two successive years as required under section 11 (i) (b) of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter, called the Adhiniyam), Act No. 24/73, because he held licences only for the year 1984-85, and not for the year 1983-84, though he had subsequently obtained a licence for the year 1985-86. He was ineligible for election and accordingly, his election to the Market Committee of the said Mandi has been declared illegal and void.

(2.) CHAPTER III of the Adhiniyam relates to constitution of Market Committees. Section 7 of the Adhiniyam relates to ''establishment of Market Committee". Under section 2 (i) (p) a 'trader' means " a person who in his normal course of business buys or sells any notified agricultural produce and includes a person engaged in processing of agricultural produce, but does not include an agriculturist as defined in clause (b) of this sub-section. " Section 11 relates to "constitution of Market Committee. " It lays down, that "subject to the provisions of sections 10 and 11 -A market committee shall consist of not less than' eight and not more than twenty members as the State Government may, by Notification, specify. . . . . . . (a)" not less than such number of the elected members as may be fixed by the State Government in the said Notification shall be representatives of the traders possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed and elected in the prescribed manner from amongst the persons continuously holding licence from the market committee for a period of twosuccessive years as traders or owners or occupiers of processing factories under this Act: Provided, that in the case of a merket established for the first time under section 10 the qualifying period of continuously holding cause from such committee shall be six months. Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1974 reads:

(3.) (a) According to the petitioner, he was a "trader" as defined in the Adhiniyam, and held licences Nos. 26, 98 and 37 (Annexures A, B and C), respectively, issued on 15-10-1983, 15-10-1984 and 24-9-1985 which were valid upto respectively, 30-9-1984, 30-9-1985 and 30-9-1986. Annexures D, E and F are the relevant applications, whereas Annexures-Dl, El and Fl are relevant declaration forms and the certificate (Annexure-G) dated 12-6-1987 has been issued by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti certifying that the petitioner traded in the name and style of "devendra Kumar Kesharwani" and " Vishwas Kirana Bhandar''. The elections to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sagar were scheduled on 29-10-1985. The petitioner filed his nomination paper for being elected a member of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti from the "traders' constituency. " The Returning Officer rejected his nomination form on 14-10-1985 and the ground for rejection was, that the petitioner did not hold licences for two successive years as prescribed by section 11 (1) (b ). Aggrieved by that order, he filed an appeal before the S. D. O. , Sagar (respondent No. 5) under the provisions of Rule 17 (4) of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Adhisuchana Prakashan Riti, Bharsadhak Samiti Tatha Mandi Samiti Gathan) Niyam, 1974. The S. D. O. (respondent No. 5) allowed the appeal holding, that the petitioner was holding a licence for two successive years i. e. 1984-85and 1985-86,as prescribed by section 11 of the Adhiniyam (Annexure-H ). The petitioner's nomination was, therefore, accepted by the Returning Officer on 17-10-1985. The petitioner contested the election, and was declared elected on 19-10-1985.