IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4199 OF 2008 Ravansidha Chandram Mashale..... .... Petitioner V/s The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.... . .... Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.Amit B. Borkar, Adv. For respondent No.4. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 29th AUGUST 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT:(per A.P.Deshpande, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner so also the respondents. By the present petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.3.2008 where under the Government of Maharashtra has nominated board of directors of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Akkalkot. The petitioner further seeks writ of mandamus against respondent No.1 to complete election process of Agricultural 1 Produce Market Committee, Akkalkot within stipulated time frame. 2. Few facts that are necessary to adjudicate the issue raised in the present writ petition are narrated herein below: The then existing Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Akkalkot was bifurcated into two market committees under the name and style of (i) Akkalkot Agricultural Produce Market Committee and (ii) Dudhani Agricultural Produce Market Committee vide order dated 14.8.2007 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies exercising of powers of the State Government. The said bifurcation was ordered in exercise of powers conferred under section 44 of The Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The bifurcation was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 6105/07 by Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Akkalkot. Perusal of the judgment in the said writ petition dated 22.8.2007 reveals that all the challenges raised to the bifurcation were rejected. Immediately after the bifurcation and after coming into existence of newly formed market committee an administrator came to be appointed. In the 2 judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.6105/07 the appointment of the Administrator has been held to be an ad-hoc arrangement pending appointment of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and other members of the managing committee of the newly constituted market committees. Thus under the scheme prevailing prior to insertion of second proviso to section 13(2) of the Act this Court held that the administrator was appointed pending appointment of the Chairman and vice Chairman and other members of the managing committee. The judgment in the said writ petition was delivered on 22.8.2007 and the Administrator continued till the Government issued the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 18.3.2008 nominating the board of directors. In the intervening period section 13(2) came to be amended and second proviso came to be inserted in sub-section (2). Thus the amended provision of sub-section (2) reads thus: “(2) When a Market Committee is constituted for the first time, (whether under sub-section (1) [(1A) or (1B)] all the members thereof and the Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be nominated by the State Government. [Provided that, the Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be so nominated from amongst the agriculturists members.] 3 [Provided further that, the State Government may, if it considers expedient, instead of nominating the members of the Market Committee constituted for the first time, appoint an Administrator or the Board of Administrators, and the Administrator or the Board of Administrators, so appointed, shall, for all purposes, be considered to be the committee constituted for the first time.]” Section 14(3) lays down that members of the Market Committee (not being a Committee constituted for the first time) shall hold office for a period of five years and the members of the Committee constituted for the first time shall hold office for a period two years. 3. Second proviso was inserted in sub-section (2) of section 13 by Maharashtra Ordinance I of 2008 with effect from 22.1.2008. In the present case the Administrator was appointed prior to the said amendment and thus this Court in the writ petition referred to herein above had held that the appointment of the Administrator was an ad- hoc arrangement pending constitution of the new committee by appointing board of directors. It is thus clear that the appointment of the Administrator was not an act done by the State in a situation covered by second proviso to sub-section (2) which vests the State 4 Government with a discretion, if it considers expedient, instead of nominating members of the market committee, appoint an administrator or board of Administrators and the administrator or the board of administrators so appointed shall for all purposes be considered to be the Committee constituted for the first time. Thus by insertion of second proviso the State Government has been given an option either to appoint the Administrator or nominate the members of the Market Committee and in the event if the Government opts to appoint an Administrator, such appointment of an Administrator shall be considered to be the Committee constituted for the first time. Under the newly inserted second proviso the State Government has two options; one to appoint an Administrator and two to nominate members of the Market Committee constituted for the first time. 4. In the backdrop of above referred legal position learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appointment of the Administrator made on 14.8.2007 need to be construed as an appointment purported to have been made under the newly inserted 5 second proviso and as the appointment of the administrator would stand terminated on nominating the board of directors on 18.3.2008, the Government could not have proceeded to nominate the board of directors as in the submission of the learned counsel the administrator so appointed on 14.8.07 need to be considered to be the Committee constituted for the first time. On this premise it is submitted that as the appointment of the Administrator is terminated the elections of the Committee are due and directions are sought for expeditious holding of elections. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents has contended that appointment of Administrator was made prior to the insertion of second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 13 and hence the same is not referable to the exercise of power under the second proviso. Besides contesting the submission on merit, a preliminary objection is also raised to the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that the nominated members of the board of directors are not impleded as party-respondents in this petition, whose civil rights are likely to be affected. The objection is well merited. The interest of 6 the nominated members of the board of directors are likely to be affected adversely and hence they are necessary parties to this petition. Failure to implede them as party-respondents renders the petition bad in law. Be that as it may, the petitioner has no case on merit also. When the administrator was appointed on 14.8.07 the second proviso was not in existence and thus at no stretch of imagination could it be said that the administrator was appointed under the powers vested with the State Government under second proviso which goes to equate the appointment of administrator with that of the appointment of nominated board of directors. In the present case appointment of the administrator was an ad-hoc arrangement made within the scheme of the act prior to the insertion of second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 13 of the act. Having regard to the mandate of section 14 term of Administrator and the Board of Directors together ought not to exceed the period of two years. The respondents-state has filed an affidavit admitting therein that the period of two years would count from the date of appointment of the Administrator it being 14.8.07 and would end on 7 13.8.09. It is thus obvious that the elections are not presently due and hence no direction for holding of elections can be issued. The impugned order dated 18.3.2008 does not suffer from any illegality. In the result we find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 8