Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Lakhabhai Ukabhai Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 8 October, 2018

Author: Vipul M. Pancholi

Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi

        C/LPA/1282/2018                            ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1282 of 2018
         In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15481 of 2018
                              With
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018
==========================================================
                          LAKHABHAI UKABHAI ZALA
                                  Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DILIP B RANA(691) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
MR DM DEVNANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
                     Date : 08/10/2018
                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

1. This appeal, which is filed under  Clause 15 of  the   Letters   Patent,   is   directed   against   an   order  dated 05.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge  in Special Civil Application No.15481 of 2018 whereby  the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dilip B. Rana for the  appellant - original petitioner.

2.1 Learned   advocate   for   the   appellant   submitted  Page 1 of 9 C/LPA/1282/2018 ORDER that the appellant - original petitioner is the Ex­ Chairman   of   Agricultural   Produce   Market   Committee  ('APMC'   for   short),   Una.   The   term   of   the   existing  elected   body   of   APMC,   Una,   was   to   expire   on  06.09.2018   and,   therefore,   respondent   No.2   declared  the election programme of APMC, Una, on 05.06.2018.  The   date   of   the   election   was   29.08.2018.   It   is  submitted   that   some   of   the   Co­operative   Societies  challenged   the   publication   of   provisional   voters'  list   and   final   voters'   list   published   by   the  authorised officer with regard to the election of the  market committee by filing the petition before this  Court. This Court disposed of the petition by order  dated   16.08.2018   with   the   consent   given   by   the  respondent   State   and   thereby   election   programme  published   on   05.06.2018   and   the   subsequent   steps  taken   under   the   said   programme   are   set   aside.  Respondent   No.2   was   directed   to   publish   election  programme afresh within stipulated time­limit. It is  submitted that fresh election programme of APMC, Una,  was   published   on   29.08.2018   as   per   the   direction  given   by   this   Court.   However,   as   the   term   of   the  elected body got over on 06.09.2018, the respondent  Page 2 of 9 C/LPA/1282/2018 ORDER State   issued   notification   on   25.09.2018  whereby  the  Administrator for managing the affairs of the market  committee   was   appointed   by   exercising   powers   under  Section 11(5)(a) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce  Markets   Act,   1963   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   "the  Act" for short).

2.2 Learned   advocate   Mr.Rana   for   the   appellant  submits   that   the   petitioner,   therefore,   filed  captioned petition challenging the order/notification  dated   25.09.2018   passed   by   the   respondent   State.  Learned Single Jude dismissed the said petition and,  therefore, this appeal is filed.

2.3 Learned   advocate   Mr.Rana   challenged   the   order  passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   mainly   on   the  ground   that   the   respondent   State   is   empowered   to  extend the term of the market committee for a period  not exceeding one year under Section 11(4)(aa) of the  Act. There was no fault of Managing Committee of the  APMC, Una, for not holding election before the expiry  of the term i.e. 05.09.2018. It is further submitted  that   before  issuing  the  impugned   notification   dated  Page 3 of 9 C/LPA/1282/2018 ORDER 25.09.2018,  opportunity  of   hearing   was   not   afforded  to   the   committee   members   of   the   APMC,   Una,   and,  therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have set  aside the said notification. It is, therefore, urged  that the impugned order passed by the learned Single  Judge   be   set   aside   and   consequently,   notification  dated 25.09.2018 issued by the respondent State may  also be set aside.

3. Having heard learned advocate appearing for the  appellant   -   original   petitioner   and   having   gone  through   the   material   produced   on   record,   it   is  revealed that the term of the existing elected body  of   the  APMC,   Una,   was  to   expire   on  06.09.2018  and,  therefore,   the   concerned   authority   declared   the  election   programme   on   05.06.2018.   However,   the   said  election programme came to be set aside by this Court  by   order   dated   16.08.2018   and   as   per   the   direction  issued by this Court, the respondent authority issued  a   fresh   election   programme   on   29.08.2018.   The   said  election   programme   is   produced   at   Page­20   of   the  compilation. As per the said election programme, date  of   election   is   26.11.2018.   The   date   of   counting   of  votes is 27.11.2018.

Page 4 of 9 C/LPA/1282/2018 ORDER

4. The   only   contention   raised   by   the   learned  advocate   for   the   appellant   -   petitioner   is   that   in  the   facts   of   the   present   case   when   the   committee  members   of   the   elected   body   of   APMC,   Una,   declared  election programme well in advance i.e. before expiry  of the term of the elected body i.e. 05.09.2018, the  respondent State ought to have extended the term for  a  period   not  exceeding   one   year.   It  is  further   the  case of the petitioner that the respondent State has  wrongly   exercised   powers   under   Section   11(5)(a)   of  the Act.

5. At   this   stage,   we   would   like   to   refer   the  provisions contained in Sections 11(4) and 11(5) of  the Act, which read as under:

"11. (4)   (a)   The   term   of   office   of   a   market   committee   shall,   save   as   otherwise  provided   in  this   Act,   be   four   years   form   the   date   of   its  first general meeting.
[Provided  that  the  term office   of the existing   market committee on the date of commencement of   the   Gujarat   Agricultural   Produce   Markets   (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Guj. 14 of 2015) shall be  four years.] Page 5 of 9 C/LPA/1282/2018 ORDER [(aa)   The   state   Government   may,   by   order   published   in   the  Official   Gazette  and   for  reasons to be recorded therein, extend the said  term for a period not exceeding one year in the   aggregate.]
(b) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the   term   of   office   of   the   members   of   the   market   committee shall be co­extensive with the term of   the market committee and also shall be deemed to   extend   to   and   expire   with   the   day   immediately   before   the   8   [date   of   the   appointment   of   an   Administrator   under   clause   (a)   of   sub­section   (5)].

[Provided   that   the   term   of   the   office   of   the   Chairman   and   the   Vice­Chairman   of   the   Market   Committee   shall   be   two   and   a   half   years   but   shall not extend beyond the term of the market   committee;

Provided further that the term of the office of   the   Chairman   and   the   Vice­Chairman   who   have   completed   the   term   of   two   and   a   half   years   on   the   date   of   commencement   of   the   Gujarat   Agricultural   Produce   Markets   (Amendment)   Act,   2015   (Guj.   14   of   2015),   shall   be   co­extensive   with the term of the market committee.] [(5)   (a)   Where   the   term   of   office   of   a   market   Page 6 of 9 C/LPA/1282/2018 ORDER committee   has   expired,   the   State   Government   shall,   by   order   published   in   the  Official   Gazette  direct that-

(i) such parson as may be appointed by the State   Government from time shall be the Administrator   to  manage  the affairs  of the  market  committee,   during   the   period   beginning   with   the   date   specified   in   the   order   and   ending   on   the   day   immediately   preceding   the   date   of   the   first   general   meeting   of   the   market   committee   as   reconstituted on the expiry of the term of the   market   committee   (hereinafter   in   this   sub­ section referred to as "the said period");
(ii) the market committee shall be reconstituted   within such period not exceeding one year in the   aggregate as may be specified in the order.
(b) During   the   said   period,   all   powers,   functions   and   duties   of   the   market   committee   under this Act shall be exercised and performed   by the Administrator.
(c) The   Administrator   may   by   an   order   in  writing   delegate   any   of   the   powers,   functions   and duties to be exercised or performed by him   under   clause   (b)to   any   officer   for   the   time   being employed by the market committee.
(d) The   Administrator   shall   receive   such   Page 7 of 9 C/LPA/1282/2018 ORDER remuneration   from   the   Market   Committee   Fund   as   the   State   Government   may   from   time   to   time   by   general or special order determine.]"

6. From   the   aforesaid   provisions,   it   can   be   said  that   under   Section   11(4)(aa)   of   the   Act,  discretionary   powers   are   given   to   the   State  Government to extend term of market committee for a  period not exceeding one year in the aggregate. Thus,  looking   to   the   discretion   given   to   the   State  Government,   it   is   for   the   State   Government   to  exercise such discretion in the facts of a particular  case.   However,   the   State   Government   cannot   be  compelled   to   exercise   such   powers   of   extending   the  term   as  prayed   for  by  the   petitioner.  On   the  other  hand, if the provisions contained in Section 11(5)(a)  is   carefully   examined,   the   State   Government   is  empowered   to   appoint   Administrator   to   manage   the  affairs   of   the   market   committee.   If   the   impugned  notification   dated   25.09.2018   is   examined,   it   is  revealed   that   the   Administrator   is   appointed   for   a  period   of   one   year   in   APMC,   Una,   or   till   elected  committee   takes   charge   of   the   administration,  whichever is earlier. At this stage, it is required  Page 8 of 9 C/LPA/1282/2018 ORDER to   be   noted   that   the   election   programme   is   already  published   on   29.08.2018   and   as   per   the   said  programme, election is to take place on 26.11.2018.  Thus,  we   are  of  the   view   that  the   respondent   State  has   not   committed   any   error   while   passing   the  impugned notification dated 25.09.2018.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view  of   the   reasoning   recorded   by   the   learned   Single  Judge,   we   see   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the  impugned   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge.  Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   dismissed.   Consequently,  Civil Application stands disposed of. 

(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) piyush Page 9 of 9