MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Governor, Haryana, in exercise of powers under Section 12 sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), as applicable to the State of Haryana, vide notification dated February 6, 1987 (copy Annexure P.1), determined that the Market Committee, Narwana, shall consist of 20 members and appointed Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Narwana, as the official member of Market Committee, Narwana. The petitioners were nominated as members of said Committee. The terms of the Committee as per Section 14 of the Act was for a period of three years from the date of appointment. After the constitution of the Committee, petitioner No. 1 Mukesh Kumar was elected as its Chairman. The State of Haryana-respondent No. 1, vide its notification dated April 7, 1988, (Annexure P.2), declared that all functions of the Market Committee would be exercised by the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Narwana. This order was passed in exercise of the powers under Section 36 of the Act. As a consequence the Market Committee which was earlier constituted vide notification dated February 6, 1987 was superseded. The petitioners have impugned the notification dated February 7, 1988 (Annexure P.2) superseding the Market Committee on the plea that eversince the Market Committee was constituted there was overall progress in the performance of the Committee and there was increase in the revenue of the Committee. Moreso, there was no complaint against the functioning of the Committee.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Section 36 of the Act relates to the application of emergency powers by the State Government if it is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the purpose of this Act cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions thereof. Only under that circumstance the State Government, by issuing a notification, can dissolve the Committee and appoint somebody else to exercise powers of the Committee. The learned counsel further contended that before issuing the notification under Section 36 of the Act, the respondent-State was bound to state reasons for superseding the Market Committee.

(3.) The learned State counsel contends that the Market Committee has been superseded in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and that there was sufficient material for doing the same.