WP.78, 79-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 78 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION No. 79 OF 2011 Mr. Ashok Rambhau Patil ...Petitioner Vs. The District Dy. Registrar & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. P. N. Joshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Bhosle, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 7, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In Writ Petition No. 78 of 2011, the petitioner is seeking an order from this Court of setting aside the notice dated 31-12-2010, issued by the Collector for holding no-confidence motion against the him in a meeting which is scheduled on 11th January, 2011; in Writ Petition No. 79 of 2011 the petitioner is seeking a direction that the representation made by the petitioner regarding the disqualification of 4 WP.78, 79-11 - 2 - members may be expedited; and secondly, they should be prohibited from participating in the affairs of respondent No.4 Market Committee till the issue of disqualification is decided by respondent No.1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submitted that there are 18 elected members in the Market Committee who have a right to vote in the said meeting under the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Development & Regulation) Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). As per section 23-A of the said Act, a meeting can be called for passing no-confidence motion against the Chairman of the Market Committee. A notice was issued by 17 members and it was addressed to the Collector who directed that meeting should be held on 11-1-2011. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submitted that out of these 18 members, show-cause notice has been issued against 4 members and the proceedings against them have been initiated for disqualifying them from the membership of the Committee. It is submitted that so far as these four members are concerned, if their names are deleted, the members would not have requisite strength to pass a resolution against him. In the second petition, therefore, it is urged that they should not be permitted to take part in the proceedings till the disqualification proceedings are not decided. WP.78, 79-11 - 3 - Secondly, it is urged that in view of the provisions of Section 23-A(i) of the said Act, a notice has to be issued to the Collector and intimation has to be given to the Director. It is submitted that no intimation appears to have been given to the Director, as contemplated under the said provision. It is submitted that notice dated 31-12-2010 also does not disclose that intimation has been given to the Director. It is therefore, submitted that the notice is liable to be set aside. 2. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the petitioner. So far as the first submission is concerned, it is settled position in law that as long as an order of disqualification is not passed against a member, he continues to be a member of the Committee and merely because disqualification proceedings are against him, he cannot be restrained from participating in the proceedings of the Committee. Therefore, the said submission is without any substance and cannot be accepted. So far as second contention is concerned, at this stage, the said contention, in my view, has been prematurely raised. In the event no confidence motion is passed against him, the petitioner would be entitled to raise this contention while challenging the no confidence motion. It is possible that the respondents may have given a separate intimation to the Director and therefore, the said question is a disputed question of fact WP.78, 79-11 - 4 - and it cannot be gone into at this stage, under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]