Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shekhar Ramchandra Badade, claiming to be an agriculturist and member of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Neera, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to forthwith hold elections to constitute the duly elected Committee of the Pune District Agricultural Produce Market Committee (respondent No.5). He also sought a direction to refrain from extending the appointment of the Administrator on respondent No.5. The petitioner asserted that the erstwhile Market Committee was suspended on 29 July 2003 and an Administrator was appointed, which arrangement continued. The State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 13(1B) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, had not issued a notification specifying the number of members of the Market Committee and the number of members to be elected from reserved categories. The court considered whether it could direct elections in the absence of such notification. The petitioner argued that the Administrator's appointment was extended without authority and that elections must be held. The respondents contended that the State Government was in the process of issuing the requisite notification and that elections could not be held until then. The court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel elections when the statutory preconditions under Section 13(1B) have not been fulfilled. The court noted that the State Government must first issue a notification specifying the number of members and reserved categories. Until then, the Administrator can continue. The petition was dismissed as premature, and the civil application for intervention was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Direction to hold elections - Petitioner sought direction to hold elections to Market Committee - Court held that mandamus cannot be issued to compel elections when statutory preconditions under Section 13(1B) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, have not been fulfilled - State Government must first issue notification specifying number of members and reserved categories - Held that petition is premature and dismissed (Paras 1-10).
B) Agricultural Law - Administrator's Appointment - Extension of Administrator - Petitioner sought to restrain extension of Administrator's appointment - Court held that Administrator can continue until elections are held in accordance with law - No direction can be given to refrain from extending appointment as it would lead to vacuum - Held that Administrator's appointment is valid pending compliance with Section 13(1B) (Paras 3-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can direct the State Government to hold elections to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee despite non-compliance with the requirement under Section 13(1B) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, to issue a notification specifying the number of members and reserved categories.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The civil application is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Elections to Market Committee cannot be ordered until State Government issues notification under Section 13(1B) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act
- 1963
- specifying number of members and reserved categories
- Administrator's appointment can be extended pending compliance with statutory requirements
- Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel elections in absence of statutory preconditions
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (03) 49
Writ Petition No.1189 of 2012 with Civil Application No.658 of 2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, N.M. Jamdar
Mr. Ram Soni i/b Ram & Co. for Petitioner in WP/1189/12 & for Respondent No.1 in CA/658/12, Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP/1189/12 & for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in CA/658/12, Mr. M.L. Patil for Respondent No.5 in WP/1189/12 & for Respondent No.6 in CA/658/12, Mr. Vijay Patil for Applicant/Intervenor in CA/658/12
Shekhar Ramchandra Badade
The State of Maharashtra, The Principal Secretary, Cooperation, Marketing & Textile Department, The Director of Marketing, The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, The Administrator, Pune District Agricultural Produce Market Committee
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to hold elections to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee and to restrain extension of Administrator's appointment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondents to forthwith hold elections to constitute the duly elected Committee of respondent No.5 and to refrain from extending the appointment of the Administrator.
Filing Reason
The erstwhile Market Committee was suspended on 29 July 2003 and an Administrator was appointed, which continued without elections being held. The State Government had not issued a notification under Section 13(1B) of the Act specifying the number of members and reserved categories.
Issues
Whether the High Court can direct the State Government to hold elections to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee despite non-compliance with the requirement under Section 13(1B) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, to issue a notification specifying the number of members and reserved categories.
Whether the Administrator's appointment can be extended pending compliance with statutory requirements.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Administrator's appointment was extended without authority and that elections must be held forthwith.
Respondents contended that the State Government was in the process of issuing the requisite notification under Section 13(1B) and that elections could not be held until then.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel elections to the Market Committee when the statutory preconditions under Section 13(1B) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, have not been fulfilled. The State Government must first issue a notification specifying the number of members and reserved categories. Until then, the Administrator can continue.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist and agriculturist member of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Neera, District Pune, which is a constituent of Respondent No.5.
The petitioner asserts that the erstwhile Market Committee was suspended on 29th July, 2003 and Administrator was appointed to manage the affairs of the said Committee.
The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 13 (1B) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, has not issued a notification specifying the number of members of the Market Committee and the number of members to be elected from reserved categories.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1189 of 2012 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Civil Application No.658 of 2012 was filed by intervenors. The matter was heard on March 14, 2012, and judgment was pronounced on March 19, 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963: Section 13(1B)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
