1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2509/2011 (Abhay B. Dongre and another .vs. State of Mah. And others. ) with Writ Petition No.591/2011 (Prakash Anandrao Mankar and others .vs. The Director of Marketing, State of Mah. And ors.) with L.P.A. No.236/2011 in Writ Petition No.423/2011 (D) (Abhay Bhaurao Dongre and ors. .vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and ors) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Petitioners in W.P. No.2509/11. Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for Petitioners in WP No. 591/11 Mr. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Appellants in LPA 236/2011 Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Adddl.GP for Respondents 1 & 2. Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for Intervenor in WP 2509/11 & for Respondents No.2 and 3 in LPA No. 236/11. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Respondents 3 to 12 in WP No. 591/11. ... CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 22, 2011 Heard. In Writ Petition No. 591/2011, the prayer is to 2 direct respondents no.1 and 2 to appoint Administrator to manage the affairs of A.P.M.C. Pandharkawada under Section 15A of The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short “APMC Act”). Contention in short is by order dated 1.12.2010 State of Maharashtra has only postponed the elections for the period of six months i.e. from 17.12.2010 till 16.6.2011 and tenure of the Board of Directors has not been extended. Hence the recourse ought to have been taken to the provisions of Section 15A of the APMC Act and Administrator ought to have been appointed. During the pendency of this writ petition and in view of subsequent developments, C.A.W. No. 1473/2011 has been filed and amendment has been prayed for. It is pointed out that on 18.5.2011 an order has been issued by the State Government extending the term of APMC further from 16.6.2011 till the elections of Board of Directors (Executive Committee of APMC) are over. Said amendment is allowed and be carried out forthwith. It appears that in Writ Petition No. 423/2011 filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 591/2011, the challenge raised was to the above order dated 1.12.2010 by which the elections were postponed and prayer was made to direct concerned authority to hold the elections of Board of Directors forthwith. This petition was considered on 27.4.2011 and was disposed of by learned Single Judge directing the District Deputy Registrar (not party to that petition) to hold elections before 30.6.2011. L.P.A. No. 236/2011 is 3 filed by respondent no.3 in that writ petition challenging this direction. LPA was presented during vacation and on 28.5.2011 after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGP, this Court has stayed that order dated 27.4.2011 and the finalization of voters’ list. It appears that along with the LPA, the appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 2509/2011 wherein he had challenged the election programme in so far as finalization of voters’ list is concerned. The above mentioned order dated 28.5.2011 of learned Single Judge in LPA is common order passed on said Writ petition No. 2509/2011 also. In this situation, we have heard Advocate Shri Ghare for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 591/2011. Said person was also petitioner in Writ Petition No. 423/2011. Contention of Advocate Shri Ghare is by order dated 1.12.2010 the tenure of Executive Committee (Board of Directors) of APMC Pandharkawada was not extended and only elections were postponed. Hence the recourse to provisions of Section 15A of the APMC Act ought to have been taken and an Administrator should have been appointed. He has further questioned the order dated 18.5.2011 issued by the State Government contending that the order is misconceived and reasons therein are totally irrelevant. He has also urged that said order is not by publication in official gazette as required and the extension granted is to tenure of Board of Directors which was not in existence. He points out that said tenure had already expired on 16.12.2010 and 4 as it was not extended thereafter, there cannot be any retrospective extension. He has urged that order dated 27.4.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 423/2011 is by consent and he has in support relied upon the averments made in CAZ No. 383/2011 in LPA No. 236/2011 for dismissal of appeal. He contents that as that order was passed on consent, LPA against it is not maintainable and for very same reasons prayers made in Writ Petition No. 2509/2011 which run contrary to it, are also not sustainable. According to him, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence this Court should not interfere in the matter. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State Government as also the Director of Marketing and District Deputy Registrar has supported the order dated 18.5.2011. It is contended that District Deputy Registrar is not party in Writ Petition No. 423/2011 and in any case the order dated 27.4.2011 disposing of that writ petition does not preclude State Government from using its powers under Section 14(3) and 14 (3A) of the APMC Act. Attention has been invited to provisions of Section 15 of APMC Act to urge that the tenure of existing body of APMC continues till the holding of the first meeting of the newly elected Board of Directors and hence arguments about alleged retrospective effect to the order dated 18.5.2011 is misconceived. It is further urged that the State Government has not given any consent on 27.4.2011. Advocate Shri Khapre appearing in LPA No. 236/2011 for appellants and for petitioners in Writ 5 Petition No. 2509/2011 has contended that orders dated 18.5.2011 are passed by the State Government after recording proper satisfaction and if the directions in the impugned order dated 27.4.2011 are given effect to, the newly elected ward members of various Gram Panchayats who have to continue for a period of five years may lose their chance to participate in election of APMC. It is further urged that while granting interim relief in vacation on 28.5.2011, this Court has looked into all these facts and thereafter interim relief was granted. He is relying upon the reasons given in that order to substantiate his stand. Advocate Shri Samarth is adopting the arguments of Advocate Shri Khapre and Additional Government Pleader. Though there is an affidavit before us in the shape of CAZ No. 383/2011 in LPA No. 236/2011 wherein respondents no.2 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of appeal and are pointing out that order dated 27.4.2011 is by consent, we find it difficult to note/find any such consent in the order dated 27.4.2011. The election programme of APMC Pandharkawada was already published on 13.4.2011 and pointing out of that programme/publication by learned Additional Government Pleader does not in any way mean that the State government was precluded/prohibited from looking into the matter under provisions of Section 14 (3) and (3A) of the APMC Act. The grounds warranting its exercise have no bearing on earlier publication of election programme. Writ Petition No. 591/2011 originally filed 6 sought appointment of Administrator on the ground that the order dated 1.12.2010 only postpones the elections of APMC for period of six months from 17.12.2010. The perusal of the order reveals that the State Government was considering the resolution dated 1.10.2010 passed by the Board of Directors and after considering it, State Government has agreed to postpone the elections. Thus there is no failure or omission to appoint administrator. This petition thereafter has remained pending till date and in the meanwhile, the State Government has issued orders on 18.5.2011. Order dated 18.5.2011 specifically mentions that tenure of APMC was to expire on 16.12.2010 and its elections were postponed by six months i.e. till 16.6.2011. Thereafter that order has proceeded to consider the fact that out of total 74 Gram Panchayats within the area of Market Committee, tenure of 24 Gram Panchayats was/is to expire in June/July, 2011 and hence election programme for general elections of those Gram Panchayats was to be published in May, 2011. It is also recorded that Gram Panchayat members who would be elected in those General Elections may be deprived of participation in the APMC elections. Thereafter the heavy rains in the month of June/July is also looked into and in the light of resolution of Board of Directors dated 18.4.2011, the State Government has extended the tenure of APMC further after 16.6.2011 till the completion of election process of APMC. From the affidavit placed on record by respondents no.3 and 4, it appears that on 9.6.2011 the said order dated 18.5.2011 is also forwarded to 7 Government Printing Press for its publication in Government gazette. Along with the pursis filed on 20.6.2011, a copy of the Government Gazette dated 11.6.2011 is also supplied which shows that same has been published well before 16.6.2011. The tenure has been extended for a period beyond 16.6.2011 by order dated 18.5.2011. Hence publication is before coming into force of extension and hence contention that it is not by an order in Government gazette is misconceived. The provisions of Section 14 (3A) permit State Government to postpone the elections of any Market Committee for a period not exceeding six months at a time and the second proviso to Section 14(3) permit State Government to extend the term of office of any Committee. However, only rider is such extension cannot exceed the period of one year in aggregate. The Government did not find it necessary to appoint an Administrator while granting extension under Section 14(3A) and there is nothing before this Court to show that omission to so appoint is either arbitrary or mala fide. It does not oblige State Government to appoint administrator in such cases. If person now elected to represent Gram Panchayats on APMC is not elected as member in ongoing elections of Gram Panchayats, it will lead to further vacancy and necessitating further election of APMC. The reasons given by State Government in impugned order dated 18.5.2011 cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. Thus for valid reasons, Government has extended the tenure of APMC till the new elections of the Board of Directors are conducted. 8 During hearing, learned Additional Government Pleader as also Advocate Shri Khapre and Advocate Shri Samarth have stated that the result of elections of Gram Panchayats will be out on 30.6.2011. The elections of APMC thereafter can be conducted by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal (respondent no.2 in W.P. No. 591/2011). The District Deputy Registrar is, therefore, directed to hold elections of APMC Pandharkawada as early as possible and in any case within a period of 50 days thereafter. With these observations and direction, we dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 591/2011 and 2509/2011 and LPA No. 236/2011. JUDGE JUDGE halwai