Narendra S/O Dajiba Hemane Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the District Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur and Anr.

By this petition, the challenge is to the communication dated 21.05.2024 issued by respondent no.1 District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur, thereby communicated to the petitioner that in view of consecutive absence in three menetings, he is disqualified to continue as a Member/Director of the respondent no.2 Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, Nagbhid (hereinafter referred to as ‘APMC’).

¶25

It is the submission of the petitioner that he is duly elected Executive Committee Member of respondent no.2 APMC in the year 2022 for a duration of five years i.e. 2022-23 to 2027-28. It is stated that respondent no.2 APMC is comprised 18 Directors. It is the submission of the petitioner that by the impugned communication, it was informed to him that due to absence for three consecutive meetings of the Executive Committee held on 30.10.2023, 23.12.2023 and 30.01.2024, he ceases to be a member of the APMC, as per Section 24 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1963’). In the said communication, it is stated that respondent no.2

¶26

921.J.wp.4565.2024.odt

¶27

3

¶28

APMC has communicated to respondent no. 1 about the absence of the petitioner on three consecutive meetings and therefore, there is no need to issue notice to the respondent no.2 APMC.

¶29

The petitioner before approaching to this Court, made representation to respondent no.1 stating that as per Section 24 of the Act, 1963, ceasation of Executive Committee member on count of absence without leave for three consecutive meetings of the Board of Directors of APMC, is not deemed ceasation and the issue of such ceasation is required to be adjudicated by the Competent Authority. However, respondent no.1 did not respond to the above said representation, and therefore, he constrain to approach before this Court.

¶30

Per contra, respondent nos.1 and 2 has strongly opposed the present petition by stating that as per Section 24 of the Act, 1963, if an Executive Committee Member remains absent for three consecutive meetings, ceasation of membership is automatic. Accordingly, there is no violation of any provisions of the law and hence the petition being devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.

¶31

In the background of the submission made by both the parties, the question falls under consideration is whether under Section

¶32

921.J.wp.4565.2024.odt

¶33

4

¶34

24 of the Act 1963, the ceasation of Executive Committee Member is automatic or hearing opportunity is required to be granted before disqualification as an Executive Committee Member.

¶35

From the reading of Section 24 of the Act, 1963, it is clear that the ceasation of a membership of Market Committee is permissible when a member remain absent for three consecutive meetings of the Market Committee but the same is permissible subject to the Rules made by the State Government.

¶36

In the present case, we have perused the Rules framed by the State Government i.e. the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (for short ‘Rules, 1967’). According to us, the Rule 93 of the Rules 1967 is in respect of Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the APMC. In the absence of mentioned of ‘member’ in the said Rules, the same cannot be ipso facto made applicable to the member/Director of APMC. Except Rule 93 of the Rules 1967, there is no any other Rule to hold that for remaining absent for three consecutive meetings, the Directorship of Director is automatically ceases.

¶37

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 relied therefore upon Rule 10(1)(k) of the Election to Committee Rules, 2017

¶38

921.J.wp.4565.2024.odt

¶39

5

¶40

and states that in absence of any Rule, assistance of Election to Committee Rules, 2017 is required to be taken in the matter. Accordingly, he has relied upon Rule 10(1) of the said Rules. However, this Rule does not speak automatic ceasation of Director of APMC. This is the general rule for disqualification. Therefore, if under Rule 10(1) (k), any member is to be held disqualified, according to us hearing opportunity is required to be granted to the person against whom drastic action of disqualification is to be taken.

¶41

In the facts of the present case, we found that in view of Section 24 of the Act, 1963, there should be a specific Rules framed by the State Government as to what procedure is to be followed for ceasation of membership for remaining absent in three consecutive meetings. But there are no such Rules are framed as can be seen from statute book. Hence, while considering the ceasation of a membership, the Rule 10(1)(k) of the Election to Committee Rules of 2017 is to be relied upon and accordingly, hearing opportunity is required to be granted to a person against whom the drastic action like disqualification is to be taken.

¶42

In the present matter, the petitioner also relying upon the same Rule made representation dated 10.06.2024 address to the

¶43

921.J.wp.4565.2024.odt

¶44

6

¶45

respondent no.1 and raised grievance which can be gathered from the tenor of his submission, that he should have been given a hearing opportunity before disqualifying or ceasation of his membership as a Director/Member of the APMC. But admittedly, no such hearing opportunity was granted to him.

¶46

It is seen from the record that, the petitioner was not served

¶47

by any notice from either of the respondents nor sought any explanation before taking such action of ceasation of his membership. Hence, we are of the opinion that action taken by respondent no. 2 by his impugned communication, is unsustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶48

Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :

¶49

(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶50

(b) The impugned Communication dated 21.05.2024 by respondent no. 1 District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶51

(c) Respondent no. 1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.06.2024 by granting him an opportunity of hearing and after perusal of the record decide the issue whether the petitioner is

¶52

921.J.wp.4565.2024.odt

¶53

7

¶54

disqualified to continue as a member of APMC, Nagbhid.

¶55

(d) The said exercise be completed within a period of one month from the date of production of this order to the respondent no.1.

¶56

Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶57

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶58

Trupti

Narendra S/O Dajiba Hemane v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. the District Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra S/O Dajiba Hemane v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. the District Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gram Shikshan Prasarak Va Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, Patur, Akola Thr. Secy. and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of General Administration, Mumbai and Others

Sunilkumar S/O. Madhukar Katole vs the S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member Secy. and Dy. Director and Ors.

Lokesh Kishor Asekar vs Western Coalfield Limited, Thr. Chairman/ Managing Director, Nagpur and Another

Manisha S/O. Wamanrao Nanote Vs State of Maha., Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development, Mumbai and Ors.

Lokesh Kishor Asekar vs Western Coalfield Limited, Thr. Chairman/ Managing Director, Nagpur and Another

Ku. Surekha Vitthalrao Suryawanshi (Smt. Surekha Girish Thakur) vs S. T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal Thr. Member Secretary and Ors.