KESHO RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections to the Market Committee, Kurali (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) were held in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) in the year 1968 and the petitioner as well as one Faqir Chand were the successful candidates for the two seats reserved for licensees under Section 10 of the Act. Seven other persons representing other interests were also elected and their names, along with those of the petitioner and Faqir Chand aforesaid, were notified by the Government under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act as those of the persons who had been elected to the Committee. The notification (Annexure "A" to the petition and hereinafter referred to as the first notification) which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated the l0th of October, 1968, did not give any particulars of the persons elected, apart from their names and the categories of seats which they were to fill. On the l6th of October, 1968, the Secretary of the Committee addressed a letter (Annexure "B" to the petition) to the Secretary, State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Board) pointing out that the first notification was defective and required amendment inasmuch as the description of the persons elected to the Committee as mentioned in the notification was not sufficient for their identification and was likely to create complications at the time of the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee. A similar letter was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner Ropar, to the Secretary of the Board on the 6th of November, 1968. In consequence another notification (Annexure 'D) to the petition and hereinafter referred to as the second notification) was issued by the Punjab Government on the 4th of January, 1969, and was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated the 15th of January, 1969. The second notification stated that in) the first notification the result of' election of the members of the Committee "be read as follows". The second notification went on to state the names, parentage and places of residence of the petitioner and the other eight persons elected to the Committee as well as the categories of seats to which they were respectively elected.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he and the eight other members of the Committee elected as aforesaid took charge of the affairs of the Committee on the 1st of February, 1969, that their term of office of three years could expire on the 31st of January, 1972, and that, therefore, they were entitled to continue in office till the date last mentioned. On the other hand, the case of the State of Punjab (respondent No. 1) and the Board (respondent No. 2) is that the said term must be taken to have commenced on the l0th of October, 1968, and to have expired, after three years, on the 9th of October, 1971. They have, therefore, appointed an Administrator for the Committee while the petitioner and the other elected members of the Committee have been ousted from its affairs. The prayer made by the petitioner is that the order appointing an Administrator for the Committee be quashed and that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the exercise by the members of the Committee of their functions as such.

(3.) Sub-section (3) of Section 12, Section 14 and Section 15 of the Act provide :