CWP No.13009 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13009 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.07.2010 **** Lajpat Rai Goel . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. PC Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was nominated by the State Government as Vice Chairman of the Market Committee, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda, holding under Section 16 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. The State Government, however, rescinded the said notification and cancelled the petitioner’s nomination and instead, nominated respondent No.4 as the Vice Chairman in his place. (2). Aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court. CWP No.13009 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioenr at some length and perused the records. (4). It is urged that once a Vice Chairman is appointed, even by nomination, he can be removed only by following the due procedure as contemplated by Section 16(2) of the Act which reads as follows:- “16. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman - (2) The Committee may by a majority of two-thirds of the total members, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, pass a resolution for the removal of any of the office-bearers and any resolution so passed shall be subject to the confirmation by the Board.” (5). In my considered view the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is wholly misconceived for the reason that Section 16(2) of the Act would come into play only when the Chairman/Vice Chairman of the Market Committee are elected in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 16(1) of the Act. The petitioner was never elected as a Vice Chairman of the Market Committee, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda. The procedure laid down under Section 16(2) was, thus, not required to be followed for his removal. CWP No.13009 of 2010.doc - 3 – (6). The Authority, which nominated the petitioner as a Vice Chairman was equally competent to remove him also. Merely because in the Notification nominating the petitioner as Vice Chairman there is a reference to Section 16(1) of the Act does not mean that the petitioner was elected to that office. (7). The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly and others, AIR 1958 SC 1018 (1); and (ii) State of MP v. Ajay Singh and others AIR 1993 SC 825 relied upon by the petitioner do not come to his rescue as there, on an interpretation of the provisions of the Commission of Inquiries Act (60 of 1952), it was held that “after the member of the Commission of the enquiry has been appointed his tenure does not depend upon the will of the Government. The provision was meaningfully interepreted so as to ensure the independence of the enquiry Commission as it was further observed that ‘a body not so independent is not likely to enjoy the requisite public confidence and may not attract men of quality and self-respect’. (8). In the case in hand, the petitioner has not been able to show any power or provision under the Statute in exercise whereof he could be ‘nominated’ as Vice CWP No.13009 of 2010.doc - 4 – Chairman. The petitioner at the best was a usurper of a public office and no legally vested right ever accrued in his favour to hold the office of Vide Chairman of the Market Committee. (9). As regards nomination of respondent No.4, the petitioner or any other person with bona fide locus would be at liberty to show that he is unauthorisedly occupying a public office and may accordingly seek an appropriate writ or direction. (10). With liberty afore-mentioned, dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.07.2010 vishal shonkar