Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Disqualification of Market Committee Members for Non-Payment of Dues Under Maharashtra APMC Act. Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 applied to disqualify members who failed to pay arrears to the Market Committee.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Shankarrao Gajanan Choudhary and three others, were elected members of the Market Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. Their previous term ended on 20.10.2015, and they were re-elected for a subsequent term. After re-election, one Wasimoddin Matinoddin filed an application under Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967, seeking their disqualification on the ground that they had failed to pay arrears of market fee and other dues to the Market Committee. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Akot, by order dated 05.03.2018, disqualified the petitioners from continuing as members. The petitioners appealed to the Minister of Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, who dismissed the appeal by order dated 14.06.2019. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging both orders. The main legal issues were whether the disqualification provisions under Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) were mandatory and whether the petitioners were given a fair opportunity to be heard. The petitioners argued that the rules were directory and that they were not heard before the disqualification. The respondents contended that the petitioners had been given notices and had participated in the proceedings, and that the disqualification was automatic upon non-payment. The court analyzed the language of Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) and held that the provisions are mandatory. It noted that the District Deputy Registrar had issued show-cause notices and the petitioners had responded, and that the Minister had heard the appeal. Therefore, there was no violation of natural justice. The court also observed that the petitioners had not paid the arrears despite opportunities. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the disqualification orders. The judgment was delivered by Justice A.S. Chandurkar on 04.01.2020.

Headnote

A) Agricultural Marketing - Disqualification of Members - Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 - Non-payment of Dues - The petitioners, elected members of the Market Committee, were disqualified for failure to pay arrears of market fee and other dues. The court held that the disqualification provisions are mandatory and the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to pay but failed to do so. The appeal before the Minister was dismissed, and the High Court found no error in the concurrent findings. (Paras 2-6)

B) Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Rule 41(5) of Maharashtra APMC Rules, 1967 - The petitioners contended that they were not heard before disqualification. The court noted that the District Deputy Registrar had issued notices and the petitioners had participated in the proceedings. The Minister also heard the appeal. Hence, there was no violation of natural justice. (Paras 4-5)

C) Interpretation of Statutes - Mandatory Disqualification - Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of Maharashtra APMC Rules, 1967 - The court held that the language of the rule is clear and mandatory. Once a member fails to pay dues within the prescribed period, disqualification follows automatically. The court rejected the argument that the rule is directory. (Para 6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners were liable to be disqualified under Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 for non-payment of arrears to the Market Committee, and whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the District Deputy Registrar and the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Minister are upheld. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Disqualification of elected members of Market Committee
  • Non-payment of dues
  • Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of Maharashtra APMC Rules
  • 1967
  • Section 16 of Maharashtra APMC Act
  • 1963
  • Natural justice
  • Opportunity of hearing
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 135

Writ Petition No. 6205/2019

2020-01-04

A.S. Chandurkar

Shri M.V. Samarth for petitioners, Mrs. H.N. Prabhu for respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri A.M. Ghare for respondent no.3

Shankarrao Gajanan Choudhary, Mohan Janrao Jayale, Ramvilas Ganeshlal Agrawal, Ramesh Pralhadrao Bondre

The State of Maharashtra, The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Akot, Jaydeo Ramchandra Ghankhede

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging disqualification of elected members of Market Committee under Rule 41 of Maharashtra APMC Rules, 1967.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of order dated 05.03.2018 passed by District Deputy Registrar disqualifying them and order dated 14.06.2019 passed by Minister dismissing their appeal.

Filing Reason

Petitioners were disqualified from continuing as members of Market Committee for non-payment of arrears of market fee and other dues.

Previous Decisions

District Deputy Registrar disqualified petitioners on 05.03.2018; Minister dismissed appeal on 14.06.2019.

Issues

Whether the disqualification under Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of the Maharashtra APMC Rules, 1967 is mandatory or directory? Whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) are directory and not mandatory, and that they were not given adequate opportunity to be heard before disqualification. Respondents contended that the provisions are mandatory and that the petitioners were given notices and participated in proceedings, and that the appeal was heard by the Minister.

Ratio Decidendi

The disqualification provisions under Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 are mandatory. Once a member fails to pay dues within the prescribed period, disqualification follows automatically. The petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to pay and to be heard, and there was no violation of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Minister of Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles in the proceedings under Rule 41(5) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967. The facts in brief are that all the petitioners were elected Members of the Market Committee constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. After the petitioners were elected for the subsequent term, an application under Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of the Rules of 1967 was moved by one Wasimoddin Matinoddin.

Procedural History

The petitioners were elected members of the Market Committee. After re-election, an application under Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) was filed seeking their disqualification. The District Deputy Registrar passed an order on 05.03.2018 disqualifying them. The petitioners appealed to the Minister under Rule 41(5), who dismissed the appeal on 14.06.2019. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition on 04.01.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963:
  • Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967: Rule 41(1)(i), Rule 41(1)(k), Rule 41(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Disqualification of Market Committee Members for Non-Payment of Dues Under Maharashtra APMC Act. Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rul...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad Case Under UAP Act. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 and Entitles Accused to Bail Despite Section 43D(5) Bar.