AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition challenges order dated 30.08.2023 (Annexure-13) issued by respondent No. 3, i.e., the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Chamorshi, whereby it is informed to the petitioner that he is not an elected member of the APMC and therefore ineligible to contest the election to the post of Chairman of APMC.
The facts, which are more or less admitted, are as under:
In the year 2022, the petitioner contested the election of APMC, Chamorshi, for the period from 2022-23 to 2027-28 as an agriculturist from the “Seva Sahakari Sanstha” electorate and was duly elected. However, on 28.06.2023, one Shri Ashok Tukaram Dhodre challenged the nomination of the petitioner for the aforesaid election on the ground that the proposer of the petitioner had also proposed another candidate, which was impermissible in law. Having found substance in the said challenge, the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Nagpur, in Appeal No. 01/2023, rejected the nomination of the petitioner. This led to a challenge before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 4179 of 2023. However, this Court, vide order dated 14.07.2023, rejected the said petition.
Be that as it may, a vacancy arose which was required to be filled up in terms of Section 18 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “APMC Act”). Communications ensued between the Government functionaries and, on 28.07.2023, the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Gadchiroli, provided guidance and informed the APMC that the power to fill up the vacancy is conferred, by virtue of Section 18 of the APMC Act, on respondent No. 4. Thereafter, on 09.08.2023, a meeting of the concerned APMC was held, in which the petitioner was elected by majority as a co-opted member of the APMC. Respondent No. 4, in turn, informed the petitioner that he has been elected as a member of the APMC, a fact which was also informed to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gadchiroli.
Thereafter, as per the provisions of Section 19 of the APMC Act, a meeting was to be held to elect the Chairman of the said APMC. On 30.08.2023, a meeting was held, and the petitioner was the only candidate who filed his nomination to contest for the post of Chairman. In the said meeting, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 objected to the nomination of the petitioner. One Mr. Madhav Jagannath Parsode proposed the name of the petitioner and submitted a representation before the Assistant Registrar, pointing out that the petitioner was eligible to contest the election for the post of Chairman. On the even date, respondent No. 3 did not agree with the proposal of the petitioner and upheld the objection raised by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. As a consequence, the nomination form of the petitioner came to be rejected, and the petitioner was accordingly informed. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order of the Assistant Registrar is unsustainable in law. This order is challenged in the present petition.
I have heard Mr. M. G. Bhangde learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C.A. Lokhande, learned AGP for the Respondent(s)/State, Mr. R.J. Kankale, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, and Mr. V.P. Ingle, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 and 6.
It is the primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Section 18 prescribes the procedure for filling up casual vacancies. By taking me through Section 18 of the APMC Act, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the said Act provides for filling up casual vacancies and contemplates that, in the event of a vacancy occurring on account of death, resignation or removal of a member, or on account of a member becoming incapable of acting as a member, the Market Committee concerned shall fill up the vacancy by co-opting a person eligible for being elected as a member. Furthermore, the learned senior counsel points me out Section 19 of the said Act, which provides for the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 contemplates that every Market Committee shall be presided over by a Chairman who shall be elected by the Committee from among its elected agriculturalist members. Taking cue from this submission, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, could not have rejected the nomination for the post of Chairman. It is his submission that having been validly co-opted by following the procedure under Section 18, it would not lie for the respondent No. 3 to reject the nomination.
He places reliance on record a judgment in the case of Puranlal Lakhanpal Vs. Presindent of India and Others, reported in (1962) 1 SCR 688. In the said matter, Article 81(1) of the Constitution was amended stating that, instead of direct elections to the six seats, the Hon’ble President would appoint the said six seats on the recommendation of the Legislature of the State. In the background of these facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph No. 3, recorded as under:
“3.Before we consider what the word “modification” means in the context of Article 370(1), let us see what the President has actually done in the matter of modification of Article 81. The modification prescribes that the six seats in the House of the People from the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be filled by nomination by the President on the recommendation of the legislature of that State. Now in form the seats will be filled by nomination by the President; but in reality what the modification provides is indirect election in place of direct election to these seats in the House of the People. The modification lays down that the President will nominate members to these six seats on the recommendation of the legislature of the State. The President must therefore nominate only those who have been recommended by the legislature of the State, which is elected on adult suffrage. Now the only way the legislature can make a recommendation for this purpose is by voting. Therefore, in effect the modification made by the President is that the six seats to the House of the People from the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be filled by indirect election and not by direct election. The element of election still remains in the matter of filling these seats, though it has been made indirect. In these circumstances it may not be possible to say that there has been a radical alteration in Article 81 by the modification effected by the Order.”
It is therefore the submission that the element of election is still there. However, what is changed is an indirect election from a direct election.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon following judgments:
I) Dinesh Prasad Yadav v. State of Bhiar and others,1995 Supp (1) SCC 340.
II) Revenue Divisional Officer v. Pushpam and others, AIR1976 MAD 252.
Per Contra, Mr. V.P. Ingle, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 points me out that the present petitioner was not a person who could have been validly co-opted. However, he admits that the co-option of the petitioner as a member of the APMC has not been challenged and, therefore, in my view, the same has attained finality. He also points me out that the petitioner was not eligible for being elected as a member, taking cue from the fact that he was disqualified from being elected as a member in the earlier round of litigation referred to supra. However, I am hardly impressed by this contention since the eligibility qua the petitioner or the disqualification thereof to be an elected member was due to a technical defect, i.e., the proposer proposed more than one person as a candidate. It does not hover upon the eligibility of the petitioner.
Be that as it may, in absence of a challenge to the appointment of the petitioner in terms of Section 18, in my view, reliance placed by the authority on the term "elected agriculturist members" occurring in Section 19 to non-suit the petitioner is totally uncalled for. Even though the term “elected agriculturalist member” has been amended in the year 1987 and earlier it was only “elected member”, there is nothing in the statute to show that such term carries a definite meaning. It is not a matter in dispute that the petitioner is an agriculturalist and, therefore, even though he is a co-opted member, in absence of any challenge to his co-option as a member, the necessary consequence of his eligibility to contest for the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman would ensue. In that view of the matter, the order being perverse cannot be sustained and it is, therefore, set aside. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
ii) The communication dated 30.08.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Chamorshi whereby the petitioner is informed that he is not an elected member of the APMC and therefore ineligible to contest the election is quashed and set aside.
iii) Likewise, the communication dated 29.08.2023 issued by the State Cooperative Election Authority, whereby it is informed that only the elected agriculturist member is eligible to contest the election to the post of Chairman, APMC is quashed to the extent of the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.