K.D. Gahtori vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The delay, in preferring the appeal, is not opposed both by Sri B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State and Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No. 1658 of 2018 dated 18.03.2019. The petitioners were all members of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Nanakmatta, Udham Singh Nagar. The Mandi Samiti was constituted by the State Government, by its order dated 16.12.2016, for a period of two years. However, even before the two year period was come to an end, the Government Order dated 25.05.2018 was passed, purportedly in the exercise of the powers conferred under Section 17 (4) (a) of the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011 (for short the "Act"); and the Krishi Samiti Nanakmatta was dissolved.

Questioning the dissolution of the Mandi Samiti, the appellant-writ petitioner, along with several others, filed several writ petitions before this Court. All the writ petitioners were heard together and, by the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge relied upon Section 22 of the Act, and held that dissolution of the Samiti was effected without complying with the conditions stipulated under Section 22 of the Act.

While quashing the order of dissolution, the learned Single Judge made it clear that it was open to the State Government to take action, if required, for dissolving the Samiti after complying with the provisions contained under Section 22 of the Act. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that the order passed by him, directing the respondents to consider the matter in the light of Section 22 of the Act, may not be construed as providing extension of the term of the Committee, if its term has otherwise elapsed as per law, and with passage of time; and this order would only have effect if the term of the Committee, dissolved by the order dated 25.05.2018, still survived. It is this part of the order, which the appellant-writ petitioner is aggrieved by.

It is the appellant-writ petitioner's case that, since his tenure as a member of the Samiti was illegally cut short by the State Government without permitting him to complete his tenure of two years, this Court should direct extension of the term of the Samiti for the remaining period i.e. from the date on which the order impugned in the Writ Petition was passed on 25.05.2018 till the learned Single Judge had passed the order under appeal.

Section 16 of the Act relates to establishment of a market committee and its incorporation and, under Sub-Section (1) thereof, for every market area there shall be a Committee to be called the Market Committee which shall have jurisdiction over the entire Market Area. Under Section 16 (2) of the Act, every Market Committee shall be a body corporate; and, under sub-Section (3), every market committee shall be deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 17 of the Act relates to the Constitution of the Committee and, under sub-Section (1) thereof, the Committee, referred to in Section 16, shall consist of the members, referred to thereunder, to be nominated by the State Government in the manner prescribed.

Section 17 (4) (a) of the Act stipulates that the term of the committee, constituted under sub-Section (1), shall be for two years from the date of publication of the constitution of the committee under sub-Section (6), if not terminated earlier by the State Government. Section 17 (6) of the Act stipulates that the constitution of the committee, constituted under sub-Section (1), shall be notified in the Gazette by the Managing Director with the prior approval of the State Government. The Gazette notification was published on 16.12.2016. As the term of office of the petitioner (member of the Samiti) was for a period of two years from that date, but for the order, impugned in the writ petition, his term would have come to an end on 15.12.2018.

The appellant-writ petitioner's contention is that since the termination of his tenure is illegal and he was illegally deprived of holding the office of the member of the Samiti for the period from 25.05.2018 till 15.12.2018, i.e. for a period of nearly seven months, this Court should direct the respondents to extend the tenure of the Samiti by a further period of seven months. We must express our inability to agree.

As noted hereinabove, the Samiti is constituted with members all of whom are nominated by the State Government. The appellant-writ petitioner was also appointed as a Member of the Samiti on his nomination by the State Government. Section 17 (4) (a) r/w Section 17 (6) of the Act prescribes a specific term, for the committee, to be of two years from the date of publication of the constitution of the committee in the Official Gazette. Since the term of office is prescribed by the legislature, it would automatically come to an end on completion of the period of two years i.e. 15.12.2018. This Court would not, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, extend the tenure of the committee contrary to legislative mandate that the term should not exceed two years.

Section 17 (7) of the Act, however, enables the State Government, where it considers it necessary or expedient so to do in public interest, by notification, to extend the term of the committee for a period not exceeding more than six months at a time, but the total period of such extension shall not exceed one year.

The power to extend the tenure of the committee, for upto a period of one year, has been conferred on the State Government. However, exercise of such power is conditioned by the requirement of its exercise being founded in public interest. Since the term of the office of the Samiti came to an end on 16.12.2018; and the State Government, on fulfillment of the conditions in sub-Section (7), has the power to extend the period of the Samiti initially for a period of six months i.e. upto 15.06.2019, and thereafter for another period of six months till 15.12.2019, suffice it to make it clear that neither the order of the learned Single Judge nor the order passed by us shall disable the State Government, if it so chooses and on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in Section 17 (7) of the Act, to consider extending the term of the Samiti.

The Special Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

No costs.