LAWS(P&H)-1978-8-42

ANAND PARKASH HONI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On August 03, 1978
ANAND PARKASH HONI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prem Chand Jain and J.M. Tandon, JJ. - In this petition the vires of the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act), which reads as under, have been called in question :-

(2.) The facts, on which there is no dispute, are that the petitioner was appointed a member of the Market Committee, Jagadhari vide notification No. 495 Agr II(5)-76/4439, dated February 18, 1976, by the Haryana Government in exercise of its powers conferred on it by Section 12 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act). The petitioner was elected Chairman of the Market Committee, Jagadhari, on March 8, 1976. Under Section 14 of the Principal Act, a member of a Market Committee, including a Chairman, has to hold office for a period of three years. The petitioner having been appointed on February 18, 1976, was to remain in office upto February 17, 1979. However, in view of the amendment made in Section 12, the petitioner has ceased to be the Chairman as well as the member of the Market Committee. It is in these circumstances that the vires of the aforesaid provision have been called in question.

(3.) The argument of Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the aforesaid provision offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India as a discriminatory treatment had been meted out to the members of the committee functioning immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act inasmuch as these members had been removed forthwith without following the procedure laid down in Sections 15, 16A, 35 and 36, while the members to be appointed after the enforcement of the Amending Act can be removed only by following the procedure laid down in the said sections. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dinnapati Sadasive Reddy, Vice-Chancellor v. Chancellor, Osmania University, 1967 AIR(SC) 1305