THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA * * * WRIT PETITION No.26701 of 2007 O R D E R : Heard Sri M.N. Narsimha Reddy, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture representing Respondents 1 to 3. 2. Respondent No.4 is served and none represents Respondent No.4. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus praying this Court to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with day-to-day functions of the Petitioner-Market Committee holding that the impugned order of the second respondent in his Letter No. S1(3)5959/2005, dated 19-11-2007 in which the acts done by the Market Committee be declared as invalid, withdrawing the cheque power of Chairman as arbitrary, illegal and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 14-12-2007. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondent No.2. Though the matter is appearing under the caption of “interlocutory”, at the request of the counsel on record, the matter is being disposed of finally. 5. Sri M.N.Narsimha Reddy, the counsel representing the writ petitioner had demonstrated before this Court how the impugned order was made only because of political reasons and at the instance of Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.4 though impleaded as party and though served had not denied the said allegations and hence the said allegations are to be taken as established. The counsel also had taken this Court through the nature of order, which had been impugned in the present writ petition and would maintain that invalidating all the works already done retrospectively definitely cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through Sections 5 and 6 (B) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 {hereinafter referred to in short ‘the Act’, for the purpose of convenience} and also Rule 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Produce and Livestock Market Rules, 1969 {hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for the purpose of convenience} and would maintain that even if the stand taken in the counter-affidavit if carefully scrutinized and also the D.O.Lr.No. 60/2007 dated 17-10-2007 if carefully followed, definitely Section 6 (B) of the Act is not attracted and thus, the impugned action is a malafide and a politically motivated action and the same has to be declared as invalid. 6. Per Contra, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture had taken this Court through the language employed in Section 6 (B) of the Act and would maintain that when the directions of the Government had not been obeyed that itself would be sufficient and when no meetings can be convened and no resolutions can be passed when that had been done that would fall under section 6 (B) of the Act. Apart from this aspect of the matter specific stand had been taken in the counter-affidavit as to how the orders of the Government had not been complied with and non-implementing orders of the Government also would fall within the meaning of Section 6 (B) of the Act and hence the impugned action is sustainable. Even other wise, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture would contend that already a show cause notice had been issued and a reply had been submitted and the matter is under consideration of the Government and hence viewed from any angle, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Heard both the counsel and perused the impugned orders and the respective stands taken by the parties and also the records produced before this Court. 8. It is averred that the Petitioner-Market Committee is newly formed in the year 2005 at the instance of fourth respondent, who is the M.L.A., of Vepanjeri Constituency. It is needless to say that the fourth respondent is shown as Smt. Gummadi Kutuhalamma, M.L.A., Vepanjeri, Chittoor district, resident of 9/8, Amaravathi nagar, Tirupati-2, Andhra Pradesh. It is also stated that it is a part of Agricultural Market Committee, Chittoor. After bifurcation, it was under the control of person-in-charge till the Market Committee was constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in GO.Ms.No.345, Agriculture and Co-operation (MKTG 1-2) Department dated 29-8-2005. The fourth respondent was not happy with his appointment as Chairman of the Market Committee. She wanted her own people in the Committee and started creating troubles right from the beginning. She prevailed on some of the members of the Committee and got them resigned. The request of the petitioner to fill up the vacancies is kept pending since June 2007. As the second respondent had not taken steps to fill up the vacancies the matter was even reported to the Chief Minister on 04-6-2007. 9. While things stood thus, the second respondent in his Lr.No.S.1 (3)/5959/2005 dated 19-11-2007 informed the petitioner that all the acts committed by the Committee after the resignation of members are not legally valid and they are set aside and further directed the Chairman not to draw any amount and spend except the salaries of staff. Aggrieved by the said directions, the present writ petition is filed. 10. It is stated that the Government or the Director of Marketing are empowered top withdraw the powers of Chairman under section 6-B of the Act. They are empowered to withdraw the powers of Chairman if in the opinion of the Government or the Director, the Chairman of the Market Committee willfully omits or refuses to carryout the orders of the Government or the Director of Marketing for the proper working of the Market Committee or abuses his position or the powers vested in him. In the instant case the Chairman of the Committee had not committed any act in contravention of the directions of Government or the Director. He had not abused his position or the powers vested in him to enable the respondents to invoke the provision under section 6-B of the Act. 11. Further the powers of the Chairman to withdraw the funds is withdrawn by the Director without expressing his opinion regarding the misuse of power by the Chairman, that too awaiting decision from Government regarding resignation of members and filling up of the vacancies. It is stated that the impugned order is passed at the instance of fourth respondent, who is responsible for the resignation of members. The second respondent had not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the impugned order is illegal, improper and vitiated with error of jurisdiction. 12. Further it is stated that the impugned order was passed at the instance of fourth respondent, who is the local M.L.A. The petitioner made several representations to the second respondent and Government stating that the MLA is not allowing him to function in a responsible manner and in accordance with the rules and regulations under the Act. The latest representation is on 05-8-2007. But no action is taken on any of the representations. The fourth respondent had gone to the extent of fabricating false record, prepared the complaint against the Chairman, as if signed by eleven Directors of the Committee and forwarded it to the Commissioner recommending dissolution of the Committee on 11-7-2007. 13. It is stated that none of the Directors have signed on the complaint. It is prepared by one individual and the names of eleven Directors are written by one person, which is crystal clear even for a naked eye if it is seen. Basing on that recommendation, with a view to satisfy the local M.L.A., who is even the Deputy Speaker, the impugned order is passed in haste by the second respondent, without even waiting for the orders of the Government. The second respondent had not given any opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order is motivated and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is liable to be set aside. 14. It is also stated that the Directors, who are alleged to have signed at serial numbers 8 and 11 by name Krishnaiah and P.Gopal are continuing as members of the committee and they are attending all the meetings and participating in all the developmental activities. They were forced to resign by the followers of MLA and later they had withdrawn their resignations, stating that their resignations are not voluntary. In the meeting held on 01-8-2007, Director, Gopal was kidnapped by the followers of fourth respondent and it was even published in all newspapers. The police, who were present had not even tried to rescue and in this connection a case was filed before the Human Rights Commission, seeking protection to save their lives from M.L.A., and her followers. 15. It is also stated that the third respondent on the instructions of second respondent seized the records on 05-7-2007. He could not find any irregularity or illegality committed by the Committee. The resignations of some of the Directors are politically motivated and the vacancies are to be filled up by the respondents 1 and 2. The representations made by the Chairman to fill up the vacancies of Directors are pending before the Government. 16. The Committee got the quorum as contemplated under Rule 29 of the Rules and the decisions taken by the Committee are in accordance with the Act, Rules and Regulations and none of them are legally invalid. In the impugned order, all the acts done by the Committee after the resignation of some of the members are declared invalid. No reasons are given stating how the acts of the Committee have become invalid. Thus, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set aside. 17. Further it is stated that the Market Committee is newly constituted and various developmental activities are to be attended without any delay. For the construction of market yard, an extent of Ac:4-65 cents of land is allotted and it is to be developed. The World Bank sanctioned six crores and twenty five lakhs of rupees to construct 25 Mini-Godowns in five mandals. Further the Market Committee had sanctioned merit scholarship to the children of ryots, who are studying 7th and 10th classes and compensation to the dead cows within the area of operation of Market Committee and they are to be distributed at present. The Government is not contributing any amount. 18. The Market Committee had sanctioned various schemes and if the amounts are not disbursed, the schemes would be lapsed. Payment of monthly rentals to office building and its maintenance cannot be postponed. If the impugned order is not suspended irreparable injury would be caused to the Petitioner-Market Committee. 19. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, the Deputy Director of Agriculture and Marketing, it is averred that the Agricultural Market Committee, Vepanjeri at Penumur had been constituted vide GO.Ms.No.345, Agriculture and Co-operative (Marketing 1-2) Department, dated 29-8-2005 for a period of three years under the Chairmanship of Sri N.Rajarathnam Reddy. He had taken charge of the Office of Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee, Vepanjeri on the F.N. of 30-8-2005. 20. As per Section 5 of the A.P. Market’s Act, every Market Committee shall consist of eighteen members. Eleven members have to be appointed from among the categories of Growers of Agricultural Produce, Owners of Livestock and Produce of Livestock in the noticed area of Market Committee, three members be appointed by the Government in Consultation of the Director of Marketing from among the licenced traders in the notified area, one member from among the President or Person-in-charge of Primary Agriculture Co- operative Societies or the Co-operative Marketing Society in the notified area, the Assistant Director of Marketing having jurisdiction over the notified area Assistant Director of Marketing or Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry or Horticultural or Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry or Assistant Director of Fisheries having jurisdiction over the notified area, Chairman of Municipality or the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. 21. It is further averred that eleven growers members have made a representation on 29-6-2007 levelling certain allegations against the Chairman, Market Committee. The said representation was referred to Deputy Director of Marketing Cuddapah for necessary enquiry and Deputy Director, Cuddapah had submitted detailed report on 20-7- 2007. As per the report it reveals that the Secretary of Agricultural Market Committee submitted seven members resignation dated 30-3- 2007 to the Chairman on 31-3-2007. The Chairman endorsed on the file that the issue will be discussed with the M.L.A., and action will be taken accordingly. In respect of (1) member Sri P.Gopal, the Chairman had endorsed that the said member had withdrawn his resignation on 30-3-2007. Further the Secretary submitted another two members resignations dated d7-4-2007 to the Chairman on 9-4-2007. The Chairman endorsed on 10-4-2007 that action will be taken on (8) members resignation after discussion with the local MLA. In all those cases (8 resignations) their resignations have come to the notice of the Chairman as per record on 31-3-2007 and 10-4- 2007 respectively. But he had not taken any decision on the acceptance of resignations upto 24-4-2007 on the plea that the matter had to be discussed with the MLA and after discussions with the members. 22. The Chairman without accepting the resignations, he had requested the members to appear before him on 24-4-2007 vide his letter dated 16-4-2007 and accepted the resignations of six members on 24-4-2007. But no action had been taken on the representations of Sri Irala Krishnaiah (on 7-4-2007) and Sri V.Nagaraju Naidu (on 21-5-2007). 23. In this connection, as per Rule 24 of Market Rules 1969, the resignation letter of Chairman or Vice-Chairman have to be submitted to the Agricultural Market Committee, but in case where the Chairman or Vice-Chairman resigns delivers the notices of resignation personally to the Secretary, the Secretary shall on receipt of notice of resignation obtain confirmation from the concerned verifying in its genuineness. A resignation delivered shall take effect on and from the date on which it is placed before the Market Committee. 24. Further as per Rule 25 of Market Rules 1969 the members have to give resignation notices to the Chairman and such resignations shall take effect on the date on which it is received by the Chairman. 25. But contrary to these Rules, though the members have submitted their resignations, the Chairman without accepting their resignations on the plea that it had to be discussed with MLA and after discussions with the members. Such type of procedure has not prescribed in the Rules and such delay in acceptance of the resignations is not permitted as per law. However, the Chairman had accepted resignations of six members on 24-4-2007. 26. It is further averred that a meeting was conducted on 04-5-2007 but it was adjourned due to lack of quorum to a further date on 14-5-2007 and another meeting scheduled to be held on 26-7-2007 was not conducted for lack of quorum, as only five members have attended and the meeting was adjourned to 01-8-2007. 27. The adjourned meeting was conducted on 01-8-2007 at 12:30 p.m., there was quorum for meeting. During the course of meeting, one member Sri D.Krishna Murthy submitted his resignation personally and at the same time Chairman had accepted his resignation. Afterwards two members namely Sri A.G.Balaji, Trader Member and Sri V.Nagaraja Naidu, Grower Member came to the Agriculture Market Committee, Chittoor and submitted their resignations. 28. Out of 14 non-official members of the Agricultural Market Committee, Vepanjeri eleven members have submitted their resignation for the Market Committee membership out of them two members have withdrawn their resignation. As such, total number of Market Committee Members resigned for the membership of the Market Committee are nine. The remaining non-official members are five and the official members are four, as on 01-8-2007, the total strength of the Market Committee existing is nine members only. 29. As per Rule 29 of the A.P.Market Rule, the quorum for a meeting of the Market Committee consisting of 18 members is ten. As strength of the market committee at present is only nine members, it cannot perform duties imposed on it by or under this Act. 30. Keeping in view, the provisions of the Act and Rules and the circumstances prevailed, the Agricultural Market Committee cannot hold regular meetings with the quorum. 31. It is a fact that Chairman, Market Committee made representation to fill-up the vacancy. Since report is pending with Government for consideration, no action is proposed for filling up of vacancies. 32. In reply to paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit, it is averred that under the provision of Section 6-B of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or Rules made thereunder, wherein the opinion of the Government or the Director of Marketing, the Chairman of the Market Committee will fully omit or refuses to carryout the order of the Government or the Director of Marketing for the purpose of working of the Market Committee or abuses his position or powers vested in him, they may by orders withdraw all or any of the powers vested in him by or under this Act pending investigation in such omission, refusal or abuse of position or power. 33. It is averred that the second respondent had acted at the instance of fourth respondent is baseless. Basing on the report furnished by Deputy Director, Cuddapah, as there are only nine members in the Market Committee and there is no quorum as per Rule 29 of the Market Rules. 34. Since there is no quorum, the Market Committee is not competent to perform the duties imposed on it by or under A.P. Market Act. 35. Knowing fully well, the existing situation by the petitioner, though there is no quorum, the Chairman had called for and conducted Market Committee meeting on 24-10-2007 which was adjourned to 26-10-2007 due to lack of quorum. The Agricultural Market Committee had taken certain decisions to incur expenditure in the adjourned meeting chaired by him on 26-10-2007 as such he had abused his position and power vested in him, without competency. It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner had suppressed the said fact in the affidavit filed. 36. As per G.O.Rt.No.1123 A & C (AM-II) Department dated 31-8- 2007, the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide Procdgs.No. S-III/1381/2007, dated 03-9-2007 had directed Chairman to release Rs.20.00 lakhs on loan basis to AP MARKFED for purchase of D.A.P., for supply to needy district. He denied to release fund by sending of DO.Lr.No.60/2007 dated 17-10-2007. The said letter was returned with Endt.No.N.Dis.III/3481/2007, dated 05- 11-2007 of Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Marketing, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, with instructions. The Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee had not taken any action so far on this item. As such, he refused to carryout the orders of the Government and the Director of Marketing. 37. Keeping in view of the conducting of meeting and decisions taken therein, which involves financial implications are not valid and accordingly the second respondent felt necessary and issued instructions duly withdrawing certain financial powers limiting to drawal of pay and allowances, duly exercising powers conferred under section 6-B of the Markets Act, 1966 as a preventive measure, As such, the orders issued in Lr.No.S1 (3)5959/05, dated 19-11-2007 pending decision of the Government as per statute is valid since there is no quorum for conducting of the meeting. 38. In reply to para 5 of the affidavit, it is averred that the allegation made in para 5 of the affidavit is baseless and false. The Chairman himself vide his Lr.ROC.No.46/2007, dated 07-8-2007 had submitted a report to the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad about the resignation of nine Market Committee Members. The orders issued vide Lr.S-1 (3) 5959/05 dated 19-11-2007 are valid under section 6-B of the Act, pending decision of the Government only. 39. In reply to para 6, it is averred that it is a fact that Sri I.Krishnaiah and P.Gopal are continued as Market Committee Members and the other allegations are irrelevant. 40. In reply to para 7, it is averred that as per Rule 40 (1) of the A.P.Market Rule 1969, the Director of Marketing shall control and co- ordinate the administration and proper working of the Market Committee, and as per Rule 40 (2) (b) of the Market Rule, the Director may of his own motion, his self respect or cause to be inspected by an Officer authorized by him, the accounts of the Market Committee or hold an enquiry into the affairs of the Market Committee. On the representation of eleven members instructions were issued to Deputy Director of Marketing, Cuddapah to conduct enquiry. 41. It is fact that as part of his duty, the Deputy Director of Marketing, Cuddapah had taken certain records under acknowledgement to the Agricultural Market Committee for verification, of which, he had returned the minutes book of Market Committee, and some other records, which are needed, for the day- to-day administration of Market Committee. 42. The quorum for the meeting of the Market Committee is ten as per Rule 29 of the Market Rules, 1969. The said Rule reads as hereunder: Rule-29 : Quorum for a meeting of market committee:- The quorum for a meeting of the market committee consisting of eighteen members and fifteen members shall be ten and eight respectively: Provided that the quorum for the adjourned meeting shall be five for eighteen member market committee and four for fifteen member market committee and at such a meeting only such specific items of agenda as had been circulated to members for discussion in the meeting called earlier shall be disposed off. 43 The Chairman himself reported to the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Marketing, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, that nine market committee members have resigned vide his Lr.No.46/2007 and there were only nine members in the existing committee. As Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee conducted unlawful meeting without having quorum as per Rule 29 and passed resolution involving financial matters such as distribution of scholarships and payment of compensation to farmers if their milking cows died which are not provided in the Market Act and Rules. Hence, it is felt necessary and issued orders in the interest of Market Committee pending decision of the Government. Hence, the order issued in Lr.No.S-1 (3) 5959/2005, dated 09-11-2007 hold legal validity. 44 In reply to para 8 of the affidavit, it is averred that it is a fact that the Market Committee is newly constituted, the developmental works have to be taken up depending upon the feasibility. It is not fact that the World Bank had sanctioned Rs.6.00 Crores and 25 lakhs for construction of mini godowns. Further distribution of scholarships and payment of compensation to farmers if their Milking Cows die, is not provided in the Market Act and Rules. The Market Committee had incurred expenditure only on the items mentioned as per Section 15 of A.P. (AP & LS) Market Act, 1966 and as per the orders issued by the Government from time to time. 45 As per the report of Commissioner and Director of Marketing dated 07-8-2007, the Government have issued show cause notice vide Govt.Memo.No.12375/AM-1-2/2007/1 dated 18-12-2007 to the Chairman Market Committee and other members calling for their representation, why the market committee should not be superseded under section 22 of Market’s Act1966 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of memo and same was served to the Chairman Market Committee on 22-12-2007 by Asst.Director of Marketing, Chittoor. 46 The Chairman, Market Committee and other members have to submit their explanation to the Government, as there is reasonable opportunity given to the Chairman, Market Committee and other members including action of the second respondent. 47 It is no doubt true that the fourth respondent had not entered appearance before this Court, though serious allegations had been made as against fourth respondent. This Court is not inclined to