NAGINA BAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961') and the Rules made thereunder ('the Rules of 1963') various market committees are to be constituted for different areas. For the purpose of this constitution, different classes of members have been specified and one such class is of the person elected from amongst its own members by the Municipal Board or Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation or the Gram Panchayat in which the principal market yard of the Committee is situate, as per clause (vii) of sub-section (1) (a) of Sec. 7 of the Act of 1961 read with clause (iv) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963. The dispute in the present case relates to election of such member as per the provisions aforesaid for the market committee at Hanumangarh.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by a councilor of the Municipal Council, Hanumangarh with the submissions that an order was issued by the respondent No.4, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, who is the Authorised Officer (Election), on 01.07.2011 to the respondent No.2, the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Hanumangarh directing to elect the member from the Municipal Council for the purpose of constitution of the Marketing Committee, Hanumangarh. According to the petitioner, another letter dated 05.07.2011 was sent to the respondent No.2 alongwith the procedure and guideline to elect the member from the Municipal Council (Annex.P/2); and yet another letter dated 11.07.2011 (Annex.P/3) was issued by the respondent No.3 the Director, Agriculture Marketing, Jaipur to all the District Collectors to elect the members from the Municipal Council for the constitution of the Marketing Committees.

(3.) The petitioner has averred that pursuant to the communications aforesaid, the respondent No.2 issued an election programme notification dated 12.07.2011 (Annex.P/4) for the purpose of election of the member from the Municipal Council, Hanumangarh and as per the said programme, election was to be held on 22.07.2011. It is submitted that such election was indeed held on 22.07.2011 wherein the petitioner got elected after receiving 23 votes out of 44 votes cast; and the respondent No.2 sent a communication dated 22.07.2011 to the respondent No.4 regarding election of the petitioner and declaration to that effect was also made in the official notification (Annex.P/5).