MOHD. ARIF vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

In Writ Petition being WPMS No. 1833 of 2017, the petitioner is the Member and in Writ Petition being WPMS No. 1876 of 2017, the petitioner is

the ViceChairman/Member of the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. They were nominated

in the said capacity in Board vide notification dated 19.12.2016 issued by the State Government. Now, the State Government vide its notificationd ated

           29.03.2017 has cancelled the nomination of the petitioners and ended their term of office with immediate effect. Vide

letter dated 18.04.2017, the Managing Director of the Board has communicated the said decision of the State Government to the petitioners.

Petitioners have challenged these two orders dated 29.03.2017 and 18.04.2017 before this Court.

The State Government has issued the impugned notification dated 29.03.2017 in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 50

of the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Actâ€). Sub-

section (1) of Section 50 of the Act reads as under:-

“50. Term of Office of Chairman and Other Members.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub section (2), the Chairman and other members of the

Board who are not ex-officio members thereof, shall hold office for two years unless the term of the Chairman or such other member is determined

earlier by the State Government by notification in the gazette, and they shall be eligible for reappointment.â€​

The aforesaid provision makes it absolutely clear that though the term of office of the Chairman and other Members of the Board, who are not ex-

officio members thereof, shall normally be for a period of two years, but the State Government can reduce the term and cancel the nomination at any

point of time.

The contention of the petitioners is two-fold. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Manisha Rana Singh in

WPMS No. 1876 of 2017 is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.

M.S. Bhandari in WPMS No. 1833 of 2017 is that though the term of office is normally for a period of two years, but it can be reduced by the State

Government under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act. However, this can only be done if the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or the Member has to be

reappointed in the Board. Therefore, the argument would be that the reappointment of a person is a condition precedent for curtailing his/her term of

office in the Board.

Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 3, on the other hand, would argue that the nomination of the petitioners was

made under the “doctrine of pleasureâ€. The petitioners have no right, including the right of any opportunity of hearing before their appointment is

cancelled or their term is curtailed.Â

Opportunity of prior hearing does not seem to be the requirement under the law. As regards the nature of the appointment of the petitioners, the

powers are to be exercised by the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act and it is absolutely clear that the Chairman, Vice-

Chairman or the Member of the “Mandi Parishad†are appointed at the pleasure of the Government and their term is also at the pleasure of the

Government.Â

As far as the second argument of the petitioner regarding condition of reappointment is concerned, the said argument is also not tenable, inasmuch

as, subsection (1) of Section 50 of the Act only says that in cases where the term of the Members is curtailed from two years, they would still be

eligible for reappointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member, as the case might be, but it does not mandate that their reappointment would be a

condition precedent for curtailment of their term.Â

In view of the above, there is nothing arbitrary in the impugned orders dated 29.03.2017 and 18.04.2017. Therefore, no interference is being called

for by this Court.

The writ petitions are hereby dismissed.Â