The petitioner, Chairman of an Agriculture Produce Market Committee, challenged a motion of no confidence, claiming lack of notice. The court found he was duly served and dismissed the writ petition as having no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP5363-14
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.5363 of 2014
Suresh Namdeorao Shinde.
vrs.
Collector, Washin and 15 others.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Shri A.V. Band, counsel for petitioner. Ms. P.D. Rane, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Shri A.R. Deshpande, counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 16.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND P.R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 9th OCTOBER , 2014 .
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner in the special meeting dated 19.9.2014.
The petitioner was the Chairman of the respondent no. 3 Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Malegaon. The respondent nos. 4 to 16, who are the directors on the committee submitted a proposal for moving a motion of no confidence against the petitioner to the Collector, Washim. In the special meeting dated 19.9.2014, the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner with required majority. The petitioner has challenged the motion of no confidence by this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the motion only on one ground. According to the petitioner, in view of the provisions of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 23(A) of the Maharashtra
WP5363-14
2
Agriculture Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1953, it was necessary for the Collector to convene the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence, after giving intimation thereof to the petitionerChairman. It is submitted that no such intimation was given to the petitioner before the meeting was convened and the petitioner was unaware of the meeting dated 19.9.2014.
On the other hand, it is pointed out by the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 16 that the petitioner was personally intimated about the meeting dated 19.9.2014 and was also informed about the same by registered post acknowledgment due. It is submitted that the petitioner has duly acknowledged the receipt of the notice and a copy of the acknowledgment of the receipt of the notice by RPAD is also annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos 4 to 16.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that there is no merit in the only submission made on behalf of the petitioner for challenging the motion of no confidence passed against him. It appears that the petitioner was personally served with the notice of the meeting dated 19.9.2014 and the petitioner was also intimated about the meeting dated 199.2014 by registered post acknowledgment due. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner at this stage that the Assistant Registrar could not have issued the notice and the notice could have been issued only by the Collector is also liable to be rejected. Moreover, the petitioner cannot be heard on the other submission as the
WP5363-14
3
first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is found to be absolutely false and baseless.
Since there is no merit in the only submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner has any merit.
Suresh Namdeorao Shinde
Collector, Washim
Vasanti A. Naik
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
