MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein he has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P-8), which was notified on 10.4.2006 on the ground that the same is illegal, unlawful and against the provisions of the Act. He has also challenged the notification dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-10) appointing respondent No. 3 as Chairman of the Market Committee, Lehraghagga, district Sangrur.

(2.) AS per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was a member of the Panchayat Samiti and as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the State Government is to establish a Market Committee. The constitution of the Market Committee is laid down under Section 12 of the Act. Respondent No. 2-Market Committee is duly notified and has 17 members and in such like circumstances, the State Government can nominate one member representing the Cooperative Societies subject to the conditions laid down under Sections 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the Act. A perusal of these Sections clearly lays down that while constituting a Market Committee, the State Government has to take member of the Panchayat Samitis situated within the market committee area and since the petitioner is a member of the Panchayat Samiti within the Market Committee area, therefore, he was eligible to be a member of the Market Committee and was accordingly appointed as Chairman of the Committee through notification dated 5.7.2005 (Annexure P-1) issued by the State Government. The petitioner took the charge as a Chairman on 31.7.2005 and submitted his joining report to all the concerned authorities. On 23.7.2005 the government issued two orders by virtue of which the petitioner was removed from the Chairmanship of the Market Committee by nominating Ujaggar Singh and appointing Gurtej Singh, member of the Cooperative Agricultural Service Society to be the Chairman of the same. The petitioner has categorically pleaded that this order has been passed without assigning any reason and without passing any resolution by the Market Committee and no opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing the order of removal. It is further pointed out that the power for the appointment and removal of the Chairman only vested in the Committee by a majority of 2/3rd of total members, which can pass a resolution subject to the confirmation by the Board, but no such resolution has been passed. Moreover, the petitioner never misconducted nor was any negligent in his duties and it was only on account of politics, he was removed without assigning any reason. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has challenged his removal by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 12432 of 2005 and vide interim order dated 11.8.2005, a Division Bench of this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order and when this writ petition came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court, after appreciating Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, holding that no meeting as envisaged under Section 16 of the Act was convened for removal of the petitioner as Chairman, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 5.12.2005 (Annexure P-5) and quashed the impugned orders. After passing of this judgment, the petitioner received a notice dated 21.1.2006 calling upon him to furnish his reply as to being ineligible to be a member of a Agricultural Market Committee. The petitioner replied to the same by pleading that he is not disqualified and in fact, he was summoned by the Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Later on, he was found innocent and moreover, it is not a case, which would earn a disqualification in any manner since the offence does not involve moral turpitude. It is further pointed out that without granting any opportunity of hearing in an absolutely illegal and unlawful manner, respondent No.1 passed the order holding that the petitioner is not eligible to the member of the Market Committee. The petitioner has categorically pleaded that the order of removal has been passed with a pre- determined mind and no opportunity of hearing was given and merely because an explanation has been asked for, is not good enough as it will not amount to the compliance of principles of natural justice in any manner. The petitioner further pointed out that the case FIR No.164 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27,54 and 59 of the Indian Arms act was tried by the Fast track Court, Sangrur and the investigation of the case was conducted by the Superintendent of Police (D), Sangrur,who found the petitioner innocent, but later on an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner was summoned by the Court and was tried for the offence in which he was ultimately convicted. Against the conviction order, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 407- SB/2005 before this Court, wherein a Single Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.7.2005, suspended the sentence of the petitioner and in any case, a criminal case does not involve moral turpitude and therefore, the order of removal could not be passed by the respondents.

(3.) IT is an admitted case of the parties that vide notification dated 5.7.2005 (Annexure P-1), petitioner Mukhtiar Singh was nominated as a Chairman of the Market Committee, Lehraghagga, District Sangrur. The notification dated 5.7.2005 runs as under:-