BHOLA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned GP II for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 9.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the Government notification no. 2524, dt. 31.7.2001 (Annexure 1), issued by the Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, whereby the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Natwar, has been superseded with effect from 2.4.2001, and the duties and functions of the Committee have been vested in the Sub Divisional Officer till such time the election of the Committee takes place in accordance with law. The petitioner was the Vice - Chairman of the quondam Committee. He makes a grievance before this Court that the notification has cut short his tenure and, therefore, the impugned notification is bad in law.

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions, I am of the view that this is a frivolous and mindless writ petition. Election to the Committee had taken place in 1997 in terms of Section 9 (5) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') and the requisite gazette notification in terms of Section 13 notifying election of the Committee was published on 1.10.1997. The same included the members of the Committee including the names of the petitioner herein as a Committee member and the Chairman and the Secretary of the Committee. It is manifest from a plain reading of Section 13 of the Act that the Committee starts functioning from the date of publication of the gazette notification which, as stated above, had taken place on 1.10.97. The provision for the tenure of the Committee is to be found in Section 9 (5) of the Act, and will be three years from the date of publication of their names u/s 13 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the statutory term of the Committee expired on the last date of September, 2000. It appears that there was some delay in the election/nomination of the Vice Chairman in the present case. Law is well settled that in case of such elected bodies, an office bearer cannot have a term longer than the elected body itself. The petitioner 'sname was included in the Committee which was published in the gazette notification on 1.10.1997. The conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioner served in the Committee for a period of three years.