Allowed

Laxmikant Mahadeorao Lad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Apr 2022WP/3727/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad allowed a writ petition quashing aspects of a supersession order. The court held that supersession does not automatically trigger disqualification for all members and the Administrator must follow formal procedures to take charge.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner and committee members ordered to hand over charge and records to the Administrator within one week; Administrator directed to remain on-site for document exchange.

Laxmikant Mahadeorao Lad Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

(1)

¶2

910-wp-3727-2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3727 OF 2022

¶5

Laxmikant s/o Mahadeorao Lad

¶6

Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agricultural &
Vice President, Agriculture Produce Market
Committee, Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Marketing Department
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.

¶9

2. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶10

3. Administrator, Shri. R. M. Mote, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kaij, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

¶11

4. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kaij, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed, Through its Secretary. ..Respondents

¶12

Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶13

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4146 OF 2022 IN

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.3727 OF 2022

¶15

1. Bhagwat Shankarrao Sonawane, Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o Sarni (Anand), Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

¶16

2. Balasaheb Pandharinath Borde, Age: 65 years, Occu.: Agriculture & Business, R/o Gotegaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. ..Applicants

¶17

(2) 910-wp-3727-2022

¶18

Versus

¶19

1.Laxmikant s/o Mahadeorao Lad
Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agricultural &
Vice President, Agriculture Produce Market
Committee, Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

¶20

2. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Marketing Department Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶21

3. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶22

4. Administrator, Shri. R. M. Mote, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kaij, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

¶23

Mr. N. B. Khandare, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶24

 CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &

¶25

 S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
 DATED : 07th APRIL, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. D. Dhanuka, J.):-

¶26

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶27

2.Mr. Kale, learned A.G.P. for respondent
nos.1 to 3 waives notice. No reliefs are sought
against respondent no.4 in this petition.

¶28

3.By this petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed
for Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting
aside order dated 21.02.2022 passed by respondent
no.2 under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra
Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and

¶29

(3)

¶30

910-wp-3727-2022

¶31

Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act, 1963’).

¶32

4.It is the case of the petitioner that, the
Committee consists of 18 members of respondent no.4
was elected. On 28.08.2017 two elected Directors
made a complaint to respondent no.2-District Deputy
Registrar against newly elected Managing Committee
and requested to supersede the Managing Committee.
The petitioner submitted explanation on the said
complaint made by two elected Directors. It is the
case of the petitioner that, District Deputy
Registrar was satisfied with the said explanation
and did not take any action.

¶33

5.The District Deputy Registrar issued a
notice under Section 40 of the Act, 1963 on
10.10.2019 seeking explanation from the said
Committee members. The Committee members filed
their explanation in response to the said notice on
17.08.2021. Around 21.02.2022 the District Deputy
Registrar passed an order thereby dissolving the
existing Managing Committee headed by the
petitioner and appointed Administrator on
respondent no.4. It is the case of the petitioner
that, on 28.02.2022, Administrator appointed by the
State Government on 21.02.2022 itself served the
said order on the Secretary of respondent no.4 and
immediately took custody of the records of
respondent no.4-APMC saying that he had taken over
the charge.

¶34

(4) 910-wp-3727-2022

¶35

6.On 14.03.2022 the petitioner had filed
this Writ Petition for various reliefs.

¶36

7.Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the
petitioner invited our attention to some of the
Exhibits annexed to the petition and would submit
that, on the basis of the allegations in the
complaint making stale allegations against the
previous Committee by one of the political leader,
the State Government passed an order superseding
entire Committee of respondent no.4. Next
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that though the tenure of the said
Committee of respondent no.4 had expired at the
same time, the Administrator could not have taken
the so called charge from the Secretary of the said
Committee. He submits that, Administrator ought to
have followed the procedure prescribed under the
provisions of the Act, 1963 for taking charge and
could not have collected papers/records from the
Secretary of the said Committee. In support of
these submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in a case of Babasaheb
Apparao Akat and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others reported in 2010 (2) Bom. C.R. 578 and
more particularly paragraph nos.6 and 9.

¶37

8.It is submitted that, the apprehension of
the petitioner is that, since the State Government
has superseded the Market Committee under Section

¶38

(5) 910-wp-3727-2022

¶39

45(1) of the Act, 1963, the member of the erstwhile
Committee would be deliberately disqualified and
would be made ineligible to be re-elected, re-
appointed, re-nominated, co-opted or re-co-opted as
a member of the Committee till the expiry of the
period of six years from the date of order of their
removal.

¶40

9.Mr. Kale, learned A.G.P. for the State on
the other hand submits that, even if, the entire
Committee is superseded under Section 45(1) of the
Act, 1963, the Committee members would not be
disqualified under Section 45(2)(a) of the Act,
1963. He submits that, only if an individual
member of the Committee would have removed under
Section 45(1) of the Act, 1963, only such member
would have disqualified under Section 45(2)(a) and
not entire Committee.

¶41

10.In so far as the issue raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
Administrator could not have collected the record
from the Secretary of the erstwhile Committee is
concerned, the learned A.G.P. strongly placed
reliance on Section 45(2)(a) and would urge that,
since all the members of the Market Committee are
deemed to have vacated their office, there is no
question of handing over the charge separately by
the members of the Committee. He submits that, in
any event, the Administrator has already taken
charge from the Secretary of the said Committee.

¶42

(6)

¶43

910-wp-3727-2022

¶44

REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

¶45

11.It is not in dispute that, the tenure of
the erstwhile Committee of respondent no.4 has come
to an end. However, on the basis of the complaint
made by political leader, the State Government has
passed the impugned order thereby superseding the
erstwhile Managing Committee of respondent no.4.
The said order of supersession is impugned in this
petition on various ground.

¶46

12.A perusal of Section 45(1) read with
Section 2(a) of the said Act, 1963 makes it clear
that, the said provisions provide for two
eventualities. The power can be exercised by the
State Government for supersession of the entire
Committee or for removal of one or more members of
the said Committee. It is thus clear beyond
reasonable doubt that, if any member is removed out
of the said Committee before expiry of the tenure
of the Committee, vacancy having arisen out of
removal of such member can be filled in by the
Government as contemplated under Section 45(1) of
the Act, 1963. Only such member who is removed
from the Committee under Section 45(1) suffers
disqualification under Section 45(2)(a) of the Act,
1963.

¶47

13.If the entire Committee is superseded
under Section 45(1), the disqualification
prescribed under Section 45(2)(a) will not apply to
the entire Committee. In our view, the entire

¶48

(7)

¶49

910-wp-3727-2022

¶50

Committee which is a body of Committee members
cannot be considered as disqualified from
contesting elections or from being re-elected, re-
appointed, re-nominated, co-opted or re-co-opted as
a member of the Committee till the expiry of the a
period of six years as prescribed under Section
45(2)(a) of the Act, 1963. In our view, the
apprehension of the petitioner that, upon
supersession of the Committee by the State
Government under Section 45(1) would disqualify all
the members of the Committee under Section 45(2)(a)
has no merit. The learned A.G.P. also does not
canvass that, if the Committee is superseded, all
the members of the Committee would stand
disqualified under Section 45(2)(a) of the Act,
1963.

¶51

14.In so far as the issue as to whether the
charge is handed over to the Administrator by the
Committee or not, Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for
the petitioner strongly placed reliance on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a
case of Babasaheb Apparao Akat and Others Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Others (supra). In paragraph
no.6 of the said judgment this Court while
interpreting Section 15-A of the Act, 1963 has held
that, on expiry of the term of the Committee, in
absence of extension of term, consequences under
Section 15-A ought to follow. Indubitably, Section
15-A does not contemplate automatic cessation of
the office of the members of the Committee whose

¶52

(8) 910-wp-3727-2022

¶53

term has expired. It postulates that the Competent
Authority is obliged to take recourse to the said
provision and pass appropriate order.

¶54

15.It is held that, until such order is
passed, in law, the actions of the Committee whose
term has expired would still be valid and binding
as if taken by duly elected Committee. The members
of the Committee, shall, as from the date specified
in the order, cease to hold and vacate their
offices as members, by virtue of Section 15A(a)(a)
of the said Act, 1963. In paragraph no.9 of the
said judgment this Court rejected the argument
advanced by learned Government Pleader that, the
Administrator had taken charge of the Committee.
It is held that, taking over charge of the office
and affairs of the Committee is a matter of moment
and a formal event which has to be completed by
adhering to the process of formal taking over and
handing over of the keys and records of the
Committee. That procedure was not followed in the
facts of that case. This Court accordingly held
that, the charge in law still continued with the
present Committee which was in office at the
relevant time.

¶55

16.There is a dispute between the petitioner
on one hand and respondent nos.1 to 3 on the other
hand as to whether charge is handed over by the
erstwhile Managing Committee to the Administrator
or not. It is the case of the respondent no.3-

¶56

(9) 910-wp-3727-2022

¶57

Administrator that, he has taken charge from the
Secretary of erstwhile Committee of respondent
no.4. On the other hand, it is the case of the
petitioner that, even if, Administrator was
appointed rightly, the Administrator ought to have
called upon the erstwhile Committee to hand over
the charge.

¶58

17.In our view, the principles laid down by
the Division Bench of this Court in a case of
Babasaheb Apparao Akat and Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others (supra) would apply to the
facts of this case. We are not inclined to accept
the submissions of the learned A.G.P. that in view
of the supersession of the Committe under Section
45(1) of the Act, 1963, more particularly 45(2)(a),
upon supersession of the Market Committee, since
from the date of such order the members of the
Market Committee shall be deemed to have vacated
their office, charge is deemed to have been
automatically handed over to the Aministrator or to
the new Committee.

¶59

18.In our view, even if, the entire Committee
is superseded by the State Government under Section
45(1) of the Act, 1963, though upon supersession of
the Market Committee, all the members of the market
Committee shall be deemed to have vacated their
office cannot be construed to mean that, the charge
held by the Committee prior to the date of
superssession is deemed to have been handed over to

¶60

(10) 910-wp-3727-2022

¶61

the Administrator or to the new Committee. The
Administrator thus would not have taken charge
without following the requisite procedure under the
provisions of the said Act, 1963.

¶62

19.Be that as it may, in view of the fact
that, the tenure of the erstwhile Committee of
respodent no.4 has to come to an end and the
respondent nos.1 to 3 have proposed to hold fresh
election in near future, we direct the erstwhile
Committee of respondent no.4 to hand over the
charge of the management as well as all the records
of respondent no.4 to the Administrator within one
week from today.

¶63

20.In view of the fact that, the tenure of
the erstwhile Committee has come to an end and
fresh election is proposed to be held, we do not
propose to go into the merits of the order passed
by the State Government superseding the market
Committee under Section 45(1) of the Act, 1963 as
the same is academic.

¶64

21.Since the learned counsel for the
petitioner on instructions states that, the charge
will be handed over to the Administrator by his
client on behalf of himself and all the Committee
members of the erstwhile Committee of respondent
no.4, we direct respondent no.3-Administrator to
remain present in the office of the respondent no.4
Committee with documents which were handed over by

¶65

(11) 910-wp-3727-2022

¶66

the Secretary of respondent no.4 on 12.04.2022. We
direct the Committee members of erstwhile Committee
of respondent no.4 through the petitioner herein to
collect those documents from the Administrator and
at the same time hand over those documents and
charge to the Administrator on the same day.

¶67

22.It is made clear that, if the
Administrator hands over those documents collected
from the Secretary of respondent no.4 to the
petitioner herein, petitioner for himself and on
behalf of the other Committee members, on the
appointed date, shall hand over the documents and
charge to the Administrator as directed in the
earlier paragraph of the order immediately.

¶68

23.Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms.

¶69

24.Rule is made absolute accordingly. No
Order as to costs. In view of disposal of Writ
Petition, Civil Application No.4146/2022 does not
survive and is accordingly disposed of.

¶70

25.Parties to act on authenticate copy of
this order.

¶71

Devendra/April-2022

Laxmikant Mahadeorao Lad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmikant Mahadeorao Lad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmala Bhaskar Chopade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Vithalrao Mitkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Mascot Construction Co. through Its Managing Partner Vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 2 and Others

Alpana Sangaram Pole Alias Alpana Arun Shirgire Vs the Commissioner Competent Authority and Others

Aditya Shivkumar Totawad Thr Her Natural Guardian I. E. Father Shivkumar Sitaram Totawad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Panchshila Bhimrao Kharat Rode and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others