RAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant filed CWJC No. 4785 of 2001 [2002(2) PLJR 513] for quashing the communication of the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board dated 15.3.2001 requesting the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar to nominate respondent no. 8, namely Sri Rajendra Ram, Sub -divisional Officer, Samastipur, for carrying out the duties and functions of Samastipur Market Committee in terms of Section 9(5) of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 (in short, 'the Act ') for a period of six months from 1.3.2001 to 31.8.2001.

(3.) SECTION 8 of the Act provides for constitution of the First Market Committee while Section 9 provides for constitution of the second and subsequent Market Committees. Having regard to the limited scope of dispute in the present case it is not necessary to notice the other provisions except Sub -section (5) thereof. Sub -section (5), as it originally stood, provided for a term of three years, which was to include "any further period which may elapse between the expiration of the said three years and the date of first meeting of the next succeeding Market Committee at which the quoram is present". The provision was amended by Act 60 of 1982 to provide for an outer limit of six months ' further period where after expiry of the stipulated three years ' period elections are not held within six months. The amended Sub -section (5) lays down in clear terms that on expiry of the extended period of six months i.e. three years and six months in all, the Committee shall come to an end. In view of the clear intendment underlying the amended provision there cannot be two opinions, in fact no argument was advanced to the contrary, that the term of the members including the Chairman and the Vice -Chairman would be three years and six months. The question is from which date this period of three years and six months is to be counted. According to the appellant, it should be counted from 15.7.98 when the mistakes regarding names of the members were corrected.