Tarak Ishwarbhai Jevtabhai Member of Managing Committee and Others vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27th July 2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 appointing the Administrator to administer the affairs of the Market Committee and restoring the charge to the present Committee by extending the term of the market committee under the provisions of Section 11(4)(aa) of the Act.

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the members of the Managing Committee of Deodar Agriculture Produce Market Committee Act, 1963. The petitioners were elected as the members of the Managing Committee in the election held in the year 2006 and the first meeting of the elected members was held on 21st July 2006 and the Chairman and Vice Chairman were elected. Therefore, the term of the Market Committee commenced from 21st June 2006, which was to expire on 20th June 2010. Hence, the respondent No. 2 issued the election programme on 19th March 2010, whereby the voters'' list was to be published on 30th March 2010 and provisional voters'' list was to be published on 19th April 2010 and the final voters'' list was to be published on 14th June 2010, which was to be followed immediately thereafter.

2.1 It is further the case of the petitioners that in case of Deodar Agriculture Produce Market Committee the names of Gopalak Societies were not included in the voters'' list and, therefore, Special Civil Application No. 5170 of 2010 was preferred before this Court by Deodar Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali and others challenging the action of the competent officer of not including their names, whereby this Court (Coram: Bhagwati Prasad and J.C. Upadhyaya, JJ) has passed an order on 27th April 2010.

2.2 The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of appointment of Administrator preferred Special Civil Application No. 7623 of 2010, wherein this Court (Coram: M.R Shah) vide order dated 16th July 2010 directed the respondent No. 1 to reconsider the order dated 29th June 2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 appointing Administrator along with other directions. Inspite of the aforesaid order dated 16th July 2010, the respondent No. 1 passed order dated 27th July 2010 confirming its earlier order dated 29th June 2010 in respect of appointing the Administrator. Hence, present petition.

Mr. V.C. Vaghela, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that though the respondent-State has inherent powers to extend the term of the Committee if the elections are beyond control of the State Government, the respondent-State has failed to do so; that the respondent-State in exercise of powers in accordance with law ought to have extended the term and that inspite of the order passed by this Court, the respondent No. 1 has not reconsidered the case of the petitioners. In support of his submission, Mr. Vaghela has relied upon the decisions (i) in the case of Abdulgani Abdulbhai Kureshi and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (ii) in the case of Agriculture Produce Market Committee v. State of Gujarat reported in 1998(0) GLHEL 200180; (iii) in the case of Agriculture Produce Market Committee v. State of Gujarat reported in 2004(1) GLH 728 and (iv) an unreported decision rendered by this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J) while dealing with Special Civil Application No. 15414 of 2008 in the case of Pradeephai Parshottambhai Sojitra and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., whereby in all the rest of the three decisions, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Abdulgani Abdulbhai Kureshi (supra), whereby the order of the Director appointing the Administrator in such circumstances has been quashed.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the order passed by the respondent-authority is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that because of mal practice and mis-management the Administrator has been appointed by the respondent-authority. Hence, present petition is required to be dismissed.

Having considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner, averments made in the petition, the contents of the impugned order and the documentary evidence produced on record, it transpires that when the statute itself empowers the State Government to exercise the power for granting extension of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee for a period of one year, it is not open to the State Government to appoint an administrator. In any view of the matter, the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdulgani Abdulbhai Kureshi (supra) are applicable to the scheme under the Agriculture Produce Market Committee Act also.

In above view of the matter and in light of the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner, especially the decision in the case of Abdulgani Abdulbai Kureshi (supra), I am of the opinion that the impugned order is unjust and improper and the same is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.

For the foregoing reasons, present petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 27th July 2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 appointing the administrator is hereby quashed and set aside. The charge of the present committee is restored by extending the term of the market committee for a period of one year under the provisions of Section 11(4)(aa) of the Act. It is clarified that in view of election, it is in the interest of the restored market committee to take all the actions after passing resolutions and, therefore, if any decision is to be taken, it will be in presence of the officer of the State Government, who is member of Market Committee.

Direct Service is permitted.