Gujarat High Court
Agriculture Produce Market Committee ... vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 GUJ 665
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath, A.J. Shastri
C/LPA/1780/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1780 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14362 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1780 of 2019
==========================================================
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE PATAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR HRIDAY
BUCH(2372) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR DM
DEVNANI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND MR VINAY VISHEN,
ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 18/11/2019
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH)
1. Heard Shri Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Hriday Buch, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Shri Vinay Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondent.
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 21 03:10:19 IST 2019 C/LPA/1780/2019 ORDER
2. The appellants Agriculture Produce Market Committee and some of the members assailed the show cause notice under Section46 of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1963 Act") before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.14362 of 2019 on various grounds including grounds of malafide and also that none of the prerequisites for taking action under Section46 of the 1963 Act was available. After exchange of pleadings, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition by a detailed judgment dealing with various aspects of the matter. In paragraph40 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge granted six weeks' time to the writ petitioners to file their reply against the show cause notice and the respondents were to consider the reply and take appropriate decision uninfluenced in any manner whatsoever by the findings given in the inquiry report under Section44 of the 1963 Act.
3. Shri Thakore, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that a reply has already been filed on 06.11.2019 before the competent authority as Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 21 03:10:19 IST 2019 C/LPA/1780/2019 ORDER originally it was given to understand that the time limit would be four weeks. However, the appellants want to submit a further reply and since the time limit as indicated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is six weeks, supplementary reply/additional reply would be filed within the next 24 hours before the same authority.
4. The main thrust of the argument advanced by the appellants is the action impugned being malafide. As such, Shri Thakore apprehends that there is every likely chance that the committee would be superseded and he has little hope that his reply would be adequately and properly dealt with.
5. He has also sought to argue that the charges alleged do not fulfill any of the three grounds on which action under Section46 could be initiated. We have considered his submission, but we feel that the authority would take a fair and reasonable decision considering the reply and the material that may be placed by the appellants before the authority and in case the decision is taken in favour of the appellants then there is no difficulty. However, Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 21 03:10:19 IST 2019 C/LPA/1780/2019 ORDER according to Shri Thakore, if the decision is taken against the appellants, the Government will immediately proceed to appoint an Administrator. He has prayed that some breathing time be allowed to the appellants in case an order adverse to them is passed so that they may seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in order to protect their interest as they are an elected body and on account of malafide action of the Government, they are likely to suffer. The request for grant of breathing time is strongly opposed by learned Advocate General.
6. It goes without saying that even if an Administrator is appointed, the powers of this Court under Article226 are not limited or curtailed so as not to deal with the situation and restore the status of the committee in case the Court finds that the decision under Section46 is primafacie found to be illegal even by way of an interim order. In the above circumstances, we are not passing any orders regarding the request for breathing time.
7. Accordingly, not finding any fault with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, we Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 21 03:10:19 IST 2019 C/LPA/1780/2019 ORDER dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal with the observations placed above. Consequently, the connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (A.J. SHASTRI, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 21 03:10:19 IST 2019