Gujarat High Court
Dashrathbhai Jethabhai Patel vs Director, Agriculture Marketing And ... on 1 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 GUJ 839
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/11247/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11247 of 2019
==========================================================
DASHRATHBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL
Versus
DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE MARKETING AND RURAL FINANCE,
GUJARAT STATE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BS PATEL with MR CHIRAG B PATEL(3679) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AMIT BAROT, AGP for the Respondent State
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 01/07/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners, who are the members of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "APMC, Patan") have challenged the communication dated 24.6.2019 (Annexure-A) of the respondent No.2, and the order dated 7.6.2019 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.1.
2. It appears that the respondent No.1 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 44 of the Agriculture Produce Market Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") has initiated the Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:57:13 IST 2019 C/SCA/11247/2019 ORDER inquiry against the members of the APMC, Patan with regard to the affairs of the Market Committee and has authorized the respondent No.2 to conduct the inquiry and to submit the report after the completion of the inquiry as per the impugned order dated 7.6.2019. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent No.2 has called upon the petitioners being the members of the APMC, Patan to submit their reply in respect of the issues mentioned along with the order dated 7.6.2019 of the respondent No.1. The petitioners sought copies of the preliminary/discreet inquiry reports of the Deputy Director which have been mentioned as 'read' in the order dated 7.6.2019. The respondent No.2, however, declined to supply copies of the said reports to the petitioners and called upon the petitioners to submit the reply vide the communication dated 24.6.2019. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate Mr.B. S. Patel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to the copies of the preliminary inquiry reports, which have been referred by the respondent No.1 in his order dated 7.6.2019 for initiating the inquiry against the petitioners under Section 44 of the said Act, however, the respondent No.2, who is the inquiry officer authorized by the respondent No.1 has called upon the petitioners to submit the reply without furnishing the copies of the Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:57:13 IST 2019 C/SCA/11247/2019 ORDER said reports. Mr.Patel also submitted that such action of the respondent No.2 is not only in violation of the principles of natural justice, but also mala fide, inasmuch as the inquiry has been initiated at the instance of the members, who have been defeated in the election of the APMC, Patan.
4. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by Mr.Patel, it would be beneficial to refer to Section 44 of the said Act, which reads as under:-
"44. Power to hold inquiry. (1) The Director may of his own motion, himself or by an officer authorised by him, inspect or cause to be inspected the accounts of a market committee or hold an inquiry into the affairs of a market committee.
(2) When the affairs of a market committee are inquired into, all members, officers and servants of the committee shall furnish such information and produce such documents in their possession, relating to the affairs of the committee, a the Director or the officer may require.
(3) The Director and the officer shall have the power to summon and enforce the attendance of members and officers of the market committee and to compel them to give evidence and to produce documents by the same means and as far as possible in the same manner as is provided in the case of a Civil Court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908).
(4) The Director or, as the case may be, the officer may require the market committee either as a result of the inquiry or Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:57:13 IST 2019 C/SCA/11247/2019 ORDER otherwise to do a thing or to abstain from doing a thing which the Director or the officer considers necessary for the purposes of this Act, and to send a written reply to him within a reasonable time stating whether the aforesaid requisition is complied and in case it is not complied, stating its reason for not complying with the requisition."
5. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it appears that the Director of his own motion, himself or by an officer authorised by him, can inspect or cause to be inspected the accounts of a market committee or hold an inquiry into the affairs of the market committee. It also transpires that when such affairs of a market committee are inquired into, all the members, officers and servants of the committee have to cooperate and furnish all the information and the documents as the Director or the officer authorised may require. It further provides that the Director or the authorised officer as the case may be has also the power to summon and enforce the attendance of the members and the officers of the market committee, and to compel them to give evidence and to produce documents in the manner provided therein. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it appears that the respondent No.1 Director having authorized the respondent No.2 to make inquiry into the affairs of the market committee under Section 44 of the said Act, on the points annexed to the order dated 7.6.2019, the respondent No.2 has called upon the petitioners Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:57:13 IST 2019 C/SCA/11247/2019 ORDER to submit their reply. The petitioners, instead of cooperating in the said inquiry and submitting the reply to the respondent No.2, has approached this Court under the guise that they have not been furnished with the preliminary/discreet inquiry reports mentioned as 'read' in the preamble of the order dated 7.6.2019. Mr.Patel has failed to substantiate his submission as to which of the legal, statutory or fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated, entitling them to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted that the Director suo motu of his own or by an officer authorised by him can hold the inquiry under Section 44 of the said Act. Mere reference of any document in the order authorising the respondent No.2 to hold inquiry by itself would not entitle the petitioners to have copy of such document. The inquiry to be conducted by the respondent No.2 is at a very nascent stage and the petitioners are bound to cooperate in the inquiry proceedings. Since the petitioners have been called upon to submit their response in respect of the issues mentioned along with the order dated 7.6.2019, the Court at this stage is not inclined, to interfere with the said inquiry proceedings, which even otherwise are legally permissible under Section 44 of the said Act.
6. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:57:13 IST 2019 C/SCA/11247/2019 ORDER merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, is not inclined to interfere with the inquiry proceedings at this juncture. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) V.V.P. PODUVAL Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:57:13 IST 2019