Agriculture Produce Market Committee vs State of Gujaart and Others

M.R. Shah, J.—RULE. Shri Jaswant K. Shah, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Shirish Joshi, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 4.

The present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Petitioner-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dahod for an appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 24/06/2011 at Annexure - A to the petition by which the Petitioner-Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dahod is directed to pay 33% of the assets and liability to Agriculture Produce Market committee, Garbada.

Shri Dipen Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that as such the impugned notification has been issued without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner. It is also further submitted that even no reasons have been assigned to come to the conclusion of paying 33% to Respondent No. 4 towards their share of assets and liabilities. It is submitted that as such according to the Petitioner 20% would be just and proper. It is further submitted that as such there is no factual basis for awarding and/or giving 33% to Respondent No. 4-Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Garbada on bifurcation. It is further submitted that even there is no bifurcation of staff, which is allotted to Respondent No. 4 and even their salary is at present being borne by the Petitioner-Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dahod. It is submitted that as such as per the norms, which are followed by Respondent No. 1 with respect to the said Market Committee 20% of the amount would be just and proper for which even the Petitioner-Agriculture Produce Market Committee passed Resolution to pay Rs. 2,22,22,222/- to Respondent No. 4-Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Garbada towards their share and liability.

Shri J.K. Shah, learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent is not in a position to dispute that as such the impugned notification directing the Petitioner to pay 33% of their total assets and liability to Respondent No. 4 is a non speaking order and/or no reasons are assigned and/or there are no factual basis pointing out in the said order and, therefore, considering the above, it appears to the Court that the matter is to be remanded to Respondent No. 1 to issue fresh notification in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4.

Shri Baiju Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 has stated that if this Court is inclined to remand the matter to Respondent No. 1 in that case the Petitioner may be directed to atleast pay the undisputed amount i.e Rs. 2,22,22,222/- without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Respondent No. 4 to claim more.

At this stage, Shri Dipen Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has stated that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,22,22,222/- shall be paid to Respondent No. 4-Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Garbada within a period of three months by three equal instalments and the first instalment shall be paid to Respondent No. 4-Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Garbada within a period of two weeks from today. However, he has stated that it may be noted that according to the Petitioner the same be treated as full and final claim of Respondent No. 4.

The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties as such do not invite any further reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned notification and remanding the matter to Respondent No. 1 for its fresh decision in accordance with law and on its own merits and after giving an opportunity to all the concerned. Hence, this Court is not assigning reasoned order.

In view of the above and even considering the impugned notification dated 24/06/2011, which prima facie seems to be a non speaking order and no reasons are assigned, the impugned notification dated 24/06/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter s remanded to Respondent No. 1 for its fresh decision in accordance with law and on its own merits and after giving an opportunity to all the concerned, inclusive of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4. In the meantime, as agreed, the Petitioner to pay the undisputed amount of Rs. 2,22,22,222/- to Respondent No. 4 within three months by three equal monthly instalments and the first instalments to be paid within a period of two weeks from today. However, the aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Respondent No. 4 to claim more and it will be open for the Petitioner to contend before Respondent No. 1 that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,22,22,222/- is just and proper and be treated as final. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits with respect to entitlement by Respondent No. 4 towards the assets and liabilities on bifurcation and it will be ultimately for Respondent No. 1 to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and on its own merits. It will always be open for the Petitioner to make submissions with respect to liability of the staff, which is allotted to Respondent No. 4, which may also be considered in accordance with law by Respondent No. 1 in accordance with law and on its own merits and after giving an opportunity to Respondent No. 4. It is made clear that only on payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,22,22,222/- within a period of three months as stated hereinabove, Respondent No. 1 to pass an appropriate order on remand in accordance with law and on its own merits. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.