SANT LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Market Committee, Pataudi, consisting of 17 nominated members, was constituted by notification, dated September 17, 1971, under Section 12 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, as amended by the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This Market Committee, as constituted, consists of nine representatives of the producers, four representatives of the persons licensed under Section 10 of the Act, two representatives of the persons licensed under Section 13 of the Act and one representative of the Co -operative Societies in the area. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer has been nominated as the official member of this Committee. The Petitioner is a member of the Market Committee representing the producers, Respondent No. 5 is a nominated member representing persons licensed under Section 13, while Respondents 6 to 8 are nominated members representing persons licensed under Section 10 of the Act. The Petitioner has challenged the nomination of these four Respondents Separate written statements have been filed by Respondents 1, 3 and 6 defending these nominations.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that under Section 12 of the Act, two members from amongst the persons licensed under Section 13, have to be nominated. Respondent No. 5, Shri Dola, held a licence under Section 13 which expired on March 31, 1969, and the license was not renewed thereafter till after his nomination. Therefore, on September 17, 1971, when Respondent No. 5 was nominated as a member (of the Market Committee, he was not a person licensed under Section 13 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Respondents have relied on Rule 21 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962, which reads as under: - -

(3.) RESPONDENTS 6 to 8 are dealers of Haily Mandi and are licensed under Section 10 of the Act. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that Haily Mandi is not within the area of Pataudi Market Committee and, therefore, Respondents 6 to 8 had no right to be nominated members of the Market Committee, Pataudi, as representing persons licensed under Section 10, in spite of the fact that the Market Committee had issued licences under Section 10 in their favour. By notification, dated May 30, 1962, the area of the Market Committee, Pataudi, was declared as under: