Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging an order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, rejecting the petitioner's stay application in a statutory appeal against his disqualification. The petitioner was the elected Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Shrigonda, having been elected in 2023 for a tenure of five years. Respondent no.4, Sajan s/o Sadashiv Pachpute, filed a complaint before the District Registrar seeking disqualification of the petitioner under Rule 10(3) of the Election Rules, 2017, alleging that the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.2,66,730/- in cash on 10.02.2024 for personal use from the Sub Market of Kashti, had illegally obtained records from the Secretary contrary to Rule 106 of the APMC Rules, 1967, and had called a meeting of the APMC under his own signature keeping the Secretary in the dark. An Assistant Registrar conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 02.04.2025. The District Registrar issued notice dated 02.05.2025 and thereafter passed an order dated 23.05.2025 disqualifying the petitioner, observing that he had kept cash in hand contrary to Section 36(2) of the APMC Act, 1963 read with Rule 107 of the APMC Rules, 1967, violated Rule 106 by illegally taking possession of records, and that appointment of an in-charge Secretary was contrary to Section 2(r) of the APMC Act read with Rules 92 and 108. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar under Rule 10(5) of the Election Rules, 2017 and sought stay of the disqualification order. By impugned order dated 06.06.2025, the stay application was rejected. The petitioner contended that he was a democratically elected Director with a statutory tenure of five years, that the complaint was ill-motivated due to his action of suspending the Secretary, that the Assistant Registrar had accepted his defence, that he had deposited the cash amount between 07.02.2025 and 11.02.2025, and that the meeting was called because the Secretary had failed to act. He relied on Rule 92 conferring supervisory powers on the Chairman and Rules 102 and 104 empowering the Committee to impose penalties on employees. Respondent no.4 argued that the petitioner had taken cash for personal use as shown by voucher No.199 and cash book entries, had forged records and created parallel cash books, owed Rs.10,97,044/- as on 31.05.2025, and had illegally possessed records and issued minutes. The court observed that the petitioner was an elected Chairman subjected to disqualification under Rule 10(3) of the Election Rules, 2017 on allegations involving financial irregularities, illegal possession of records, and unauthorized meetings. It noted that multiple questions of law and fact were involved and that the disqualification order would become final only upon decision by the Director in appeal. The court reiterated the principle that removal of an elected representative by administrative action must be based on strong and impeccable material and cannot be founded on probabilities. Without entering into the merits, the court held that during the pendency of the appeal before the Director, the disqualification order should be kept in abeyance. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed; the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and within three months; and the disqualification order was kept in abeyance till decision on appeal. Rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Disqualification of Elected Representatives - Rule 10(3), Rule 10(5) Election Rules, 2017 - Interim Stay Pending Appeal - The petitioner, elected Chairman of APMC Shrigonda, was disqualified by the District Registrar on grounds of financial irregularities, illegal possession of records, and conducting meetings without the Secretary. His stay application was rejected by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The High Court held that removal of an elected representative by administrative action must be based on strong and impeccable material, not probabilities, and directed that the disqualification order be kept in abeyance pending decision in appeal. Held that the Appellate Authority should stay execution of the disqualification order and decide the appeal expeditiously (Paras 10-12). B) Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Powers and Functions of Chairman, Committee, and Secretary - Sections 36(2), 2(r), 18; Rules 92, 100, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108 of APMC Rules, 1967 - Allegations of unauthorised cash withdrawal, forcible possession of records, and illegal meeting raised mixed questions of law and fact requiring detailed appellate consideration. The Court did not delve into merits but observed that these provisions delineate specific powers and duties, and the validity of the disqualification order must await appellate determination. Held that during pendency of appeal, the disqualification order is to be kept in abeyance (Paras 10-11). C) Administrative Law - Standard of Proof for Removal of Elected Representative - No specific statute - Strong and Impeccable Material Required - The court reiterated that administrative removal of an elected representative cannot rest on probabilities; the appellate authority must consider all aspects and pass a reasoned order after hearing all concerned. Held that the stay rejection was set aside and the appeal was directed to be decided within three months (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar was justified in rejecting the petitioner's stay application against the disqualification order dated 23.05.2025 pending statutory appeal under Rule 10(5) of Election Rules, 2017, and whether an order disqualifying an elected Chairman of an Agricultural Produce Market Committee should be stayed during appeal.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and within three months from the date of the order. Till decision on appeal, the disqualification order passed against the petitioner was kept in abeyance. Rule was made absolute.
Law Points
- Removal of elected representative by administrative action requires strong and impeccable material
- not probabilities
- Appellate Authority should stay execution of disqualification order pending statutory appeal
- disqualification order becomes final only upon decision by Director in appeal
- writ petition allowed and disqualification order kept in abeyance
