Dismissed

Mr. Ashok Kashinath Charati and Ors. v. the Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Nov 2014WP/10261/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of an Administrator for a Market Committee. The court held that under Section 15A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, the appointment was mandatory upon expiration of the Committee's term. It directed the State to hold elections expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected subject to a direction for the Appropriate Authority to hold elections expeditiously.

Mr. Ashok Kashinath Charati and Ors. Vs the Collector… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 WP10261_14.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10261 OF 2014

¶5

Ashok Kashinath Charati and others ... Petitioners Versus

¶6

The Collector and others

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

Mr. A. S. Desai i/b. Mr. Anil A. Desai for Petitioners. Mr. A. B. Vagyani, GP a/w. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA & A.S.GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 15^TH NOVEMBER, 2014

¶10

P.C . :

¶11

Not on Board. Taken on Board.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned GP for the Respondents. It is not in dispute that the term of the office bearers and members of the Petitioner No.14-Market Committee expired in May 2013. There were further extensions granted by exercising power under sub-section (3A) of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short “the said Act”). Under sub-section (3A), the term of the members and office bearers of the Committee could have been extended only for a period of one year in aggregate. Therefore, as on 12^th November 2014, when an order appointing Administrator in exercise of powers under Section 15A of the

¶13

1/2

¶14

2 WP10261_14.sxw

¶15

said Act was passed, the term of the members and office bearers prescribed by sub-section (3A) of Section 14 had admittedly expired. Hence, looking to the language used by sub-Section (1) of Section 15A, the power vesting therein is mandatory and there was no option but to appoint Administrator. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned order.

¶16

In the light of the admitted position that the term had expired as stated above, though the Administrator has been appointed for maximum period of six months, it is obvious that as the term of the members and office bearers had expired long back, the Appropriate Authority of the State Government shall forthwith take steps for holding the election as expeditiously as possible.

¶17

Subject to the above direction, Petition is rejected.

¶18

(A. S. GADKARI, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶19

Minal Parab

¶20

2/2

Mr. Ashok Kashinath Charati and Ors. v. the Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ashok Kashinath Charati and Ors. v. the Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Pravin Dinkar Javalkar Vs Mrs. Nilam Pravin Javalkar

Symbiosis Society, through Mr. Jagannath Raghunath Pathare and Ors. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

Mr. Lionel Samson Ballantyne and Ors. Vs the Secretary, Bombay Education Society, Christ Church School and Ors.

Saifan Khajabhai Mujawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Malleshappa Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sahajirao Bhaoso Patil and Ors. Vs the Collector and Ors.