IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 827 of 2008 (M/S) Guru Sahad Singh S/O Gurumel Singh, a/b 24 years, Village- Devdhar, Gram Sabha Menadhundi, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. …… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Agriculture and two others. … Respondents. Sri B.S.Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondent No.1-State. Sri J.C.Belwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Date July 22, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri B.S.Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.1 and Sri J.C.Belwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition may be disposed of finally today at the admission stage. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15-12-2007 passed by the respondent no. 2, in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamavali, 1965 (for short Niyamavali) on the 2 ground that the term of the Co-operative Marketing Society, Dyodhar, Sitarganj, which was two years, had elapsed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order. It was further contended that as per Rule 30 of the Niyamavali, for disqualification of any member, declaration has to be made by the Board after conducting an inquiry, but no such declaration has been made so far and no resolution to that effect had been passed by the Board, hence the order impugned is not tenable in the eye of law. In reply, learned counsel for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti has submitted that the period of the Management Committee of the Co-operative marketing society Dyodhar, Sitarganj has already expired, hence the membership of the petitioner stood ceased as per Rule 30(c) of the Niyamavali and there was no need of affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule 30 of the Niyamavali reads as under:- “30. Declaration of disqualification [Sections 13(2), 40(2)(i) and 40(2)(xxxi-a)].- If at any time the Board after such inquiry as it considers necessary and after giving reasonable opportunity to the member concerned to submit an explanation in respect of the allegations against him, is satisfied that any member of a Mandi Samiti elected or nominated under these rules- (a) was subject of any of the disqualifications mentioned in Rule 5-A on the date of his election or nomination; or (b) has incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in Rule 5-A after his election or nomination; or 3 (c) has ceased to be a member of a local body or a Co-operative Marketing Society of which he is a representative; it shall declare the election or nomination of such member invalid and such person shall cease to be member of the Mandi Samiti from the date of such declaration.” Since the impugned order dated 15-12-2007 has been passed by the respondent no.2, while as per Rule 30 of the Niyamavali, only the Board is empowered to take a decision and to make a declaration of disqualification of any member of a Mandi Samiti, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 is not in accordance with the Niyamavali and the same cannot be sustained. On this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 15-12-2007 (Annexure No. 1) is liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15-12-2007 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 1) is set aside. However, it is made clear that the Board may pass appropriate order in accordance with law and the Rules afresh. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5 6