RAMA NAND Vs. KUNDAN LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside the election of the Appellant (who was Respondent Ho. 2 before the learned Single Judge) as a result of rejection of his nomination papers which necessarily followed from the order quashing the resolution of the Market Committee, Nakodar, dated 11th August, 1964; renewing the Appellant's licence.

(2.) THE controversy centers round the election of one member of the Market Committee, Nakodar, District Jullundur, under Section 12(2)(a)(iii) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). For this election the Deputy Commissioner framed the election programme under Rule 5 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Election to Market Committees) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called the Election Rules). This programme was as under: - -

(3.) ON Letters Patent Appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and Rules 19 and 21 of the General Rules. Section 11 provides for the establishment of a Market Committee for every notified area and for specification of its headquarters. According to Section 12, a Market Committee is to consist of 9 or 16 members as the State Government may in each case determine, provided that where in a notified market area there is in existence a co -operative society the Committee is to consist of 10 or. 11 members, as the case may be. In the case in hand, it is common ground that the Committee is to consist of 10 members. Under Sub -section (2)(iii) of this section, one member is to be elected by the persons licensed under Section 13 from amongst themselves. Section 13 prescribes duties and powers of a Committee and Sub -section (3) lays down that "subject to such rules as the State Government may make in this behalf, it shall be the duty of a Committee to issue licences to brokers, weighmen, measurers, surveyors, godown -keepers and other functionaries for carrying on their occupation in the notified market area in respect of agricultural produce and to renew, suspend or cancel such licences." Rule 19 of the General Rules provides for licences to brokers, weighmen, measurers, surveyors, godown -keepers and pulledars and in Sub -rule (4), the licence -fee for a broker's licence is fixed at Rs. 3 per annum or Re. 0.25 nP. per month or part thereof. Rule 21 deals with renewal of licence and issue of duplicate thereof and under Sub -rule (3) an application for the renewal of licence has to be made at least 30 days before the date on which the licence is due to expire. There are, however, two provisos to this rule. According to the first proviso, 30 days' period of grace is allowed for getting an annual licence renewed. According to the second proviso, the authority competent to renew a licence is empowered on the Applicant's paying a penalty equal to the amount of annual licence fee to grant an application for renewal made within 30 days after the date of expiry of the licence or in the case of an annual licence within 30 days of the expiry of period of grace. The authority competent to renew a licence may remit the penalty in whole or in part if it is satisfied that the delay was for reasons beyond the control of the Applicant. According to Sub -rule (5), except as provided in Sub -rule (3), every application for renewal of a licence made after the date of expiry thereof is to be treated as an application for the grant of a fresh licence. The learned Single Judge has observed in his order that according to the office note of the Committee, as disclosed from Annexure 'A' to the writ petition, Rama Nand had deposited on 30th May, 1964, Rs. 3 licence -fee and Rs. 3 for late fee which was after two months from the expiry of the licence and because the licence had been issued for September, 1963 to 31st March, 1964, he was not entitled to the grace period. According to Rule 21(5), his application for renewal could only be treated as a fresh application. The Committee, by means of the impugned resolution, unanimously decided to renew Rama Nand's licence on the ground that he had deposited the fee including fine on 30th May, 1964, treating the licence to be within limitation. The learned Single Judge did not believe the assertion of the Committee and of Rama Nand that the latter had held an annual licence observing that according to the Petitioner before him the licence -fee paid by Respondent No. 2 was Rs. 1.75 nP. at the rate of 25 nP. per mensem. The renewal was in the circumstances considered by the learned Single Judge to be contrary to the rule. The contention that the application for renewal could have been treated as a fresh application and the impugned resolution should be deemed in law to have the effect of granting a fresh licence did not find favour with the learned Single Judge on the ground that the resolution was clear in its terms and was not susceptible of the construction suggested.