RAM PRATAP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed against (1) The State of Rajasthan, (2) The Collector, Ganganagar, (3) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh Junction, and (4) The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Hanumangarh Junction. The averments in the petition are that the petitioner is a resident of village Choilan Wali, Tehsil Hanumangarh, and is a Panch of the Gram Panchayat Choilan Wali, Panchayat Samiti, Hanumangarh. In exercise of powers conferred by sec 3 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State Government, by Notification, dated 9 12-1963, published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 13-2-1964, proceeded to declare its intention to regulate purchase and sale of certain agricultural produce, specified therein in the area falling within the limits of 31 Panchayats of Hanumangarh Panchayat Samiti and the Panchayat of S. S. and proceeded to invite objections and suggestion within one month from the date of the Notification. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 4 of the Act the State Government, vide its Notification dated 24-6 1964, published in the Rajasthan Gazette, dated 3-9-1964, proceeded to declare the area referred to in the preceding para of the Notification, as Market Area for the purchase and sale of agricultural produce, mentioned in the previous Notification. A Market Committee was also constituted by the same Notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 6 and 8 of the Act. The Committee was incorporated by the name off Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Hanumangarh Junction for the said Market Area in respect of the sale and purchase of the said agricultural produce. The Govt. further proceeded to constitute and nominate u/s. 7 the first Market Committee. On the expiry of the term of the first nominated Market Committee election of the respondent Market Committee was held in the year 1967 and thereafter the first meeting of the newly elected Committee was held on 31-1-68. The substantive term of the office bearers of the Committee expired in January, 1971. The preliminary steps for getting elected the members to the Market Committee commenced somewhere in the month of December, 1970. Final voters' list (E 4), was prepared by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, Junction (respondent No. 4) and the same was published on the Notice Board of the Market Committee only. The petitioner never came to know of it and it was only when the activities for election started that he looked into it and found that his name had not been mentioned therein Respondent No. 2, The Collector, Ganganagar, proceeded to issue a Notice, dated 23-3-71, informing the voters of the programme of election of the Market Committee. By the Notice the Collector further informed the concerned that 7 persons would be elected from amongst the Agriculturists' Constituency, 2 from the Traders' Constituency and 1 from the Co-operative Marketing Societies' Constituency (sec. Ex. 4 ). Thereafter the Collector, by his Notice, dated 15/16-4-71, proceeded to inform all the voters that election of the members of the Market Committee would be held on 31 5-71 in the office of the Market Committee (Ex. 5) The Collector later on declared by his Order, dated 1-5-1971 that instead of 2 persons only 1 would be elected from the Local Authorities Constituency. It is apparent from the Notifications Exs. 1 to 3 that there are 32 Panchayats falling within the territorial limits of the Market Committee. There are 65 Co-operative Credit and Multipurpose Societies including Better Farming Societies and Collective Farming or Joint Farming Societies operating in the Market Area.

(2.) ACCORDING to the provisions of law 7 persons are required to be elected by the organisations of agriculturists in the Market Area or where no such organisations exist, by the agriculturists paying rent or revenue not less than Rs. 10/- per year, and residing in the Market Area. The petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is two-fold. His first contention is that there exists no recognised organisation of agriculturists, as required by sec. 7 (1) (i) of the Act and rule 6[l] [a] of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules]. Therefore, all persons paying not less than Rs. 10/- on account of rent or revenue were entitled to be enrolled as electors. His second submission is that even if rule 2[xii is deemed to be referring to recognised organisation of the agriculturists, then too as many as 8 Gram Panchayats and members of the Co-perative Societies, having not been included in the list of voters, have been defranchiscd. The petitioner, therefore, prays that by an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents Nos. 11 to 3 may be restrained from proceeding to hold any election from the agriculturists' Constituency of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Hanuman-garh Junction, on the basis of the voters' list Ex. 4 and a fresh voters' list may be ordered to be prepared. The petitioner further prayed that rule 22 of the Rules, may be struck down as being ultra-vires of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) COMING now to the other point, it may be stated that under Sec. 7 of the Act, 7 members are to be elected by recognised organisations of agriculturists in the Market Area as the State Government may prescribe. Sec. 2 (xii) says "prescribed" means prescribed by rules under rule 36. Rule 7 provides that every organisation of agriculturists shall report the names of the persons qualified to vote to the Collector or any person authorised by him in this behalf on or before the date fixed by the Collector. Rule 2 (xii) reads that "organisation of Agriculturists" includes: - [a] All village Panchayats in the Market Area. [b] Farmers Forum if any. [c] All Co-operative credit and multipurpose societies including better farming societies or collective farming or joint farming societies which do not hold traders' or brokers' licence. [d] Any other organisation of the Agriculturists which may be recognised by the Government. " In this manner the three categories mentioned in rule 2 [xii], in addition to the fourth one, constitute the organisation of agriculturists as given in sec. 7 [1] of the Act. I do not agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the word "recognised" as used in sec. 7 [1] would hit the definition of the organisation of the agriculturists, as given in Rule 2 [xii] of the Rules. The definition as coined in the above rule is exhaustive. The various organisations of the agriculturists detailed in the definition would show that they are all recognised organisations of agri-culturiss as prescribed by the Rules and when such organisations have been given an opportunity to get the names of the persons included in the voters' list, it cannot be said that for want of recognised organisations of agriculturists in the Market Area agriculturists paying not less than Rs. 10/- per year by way of rent or revenue, have been defranchised.