Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an elected Director and Vice-Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Dhamangaon Railway, challenged an order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati, removing him from his positions under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The background facts reveal that on 27.04.2017, the State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution (G.R.) for market intervention to purchase Tur Dal at Rs.5050 per quintal due to large-scale production. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice alleging that he failed to implement the G.R. and caused losses to the Market Committee. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, but the respondent no.1 passed the impugned removal order without considering the reply and without assigning reasons. The High Court examined the show cause notice and the impugned order and found that the notice was vague, lacking specific allegations and material, and the order was not a speaking order. The court held that the power under Section 45(1) is drastic and must be exercised with due application of mind. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The interim relief granted earlier was confirmed, and the petitioner was directed to continue as Vice-Chairman.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice - The show cause notice must contain specific allegations and material on which the proposed action is based, failing which the notice is vague and the subsequent order is vitiated. (Paras 7-10)
B) Cooperative Law - Removal of Office Bearer - Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - The power under Section 45(1) to remove an elected office bearer must be exercised with due application of mind and the order must be a speaking order reflecting reasons. (Paras 11-13)
C) Administrative Law - Speaking Order - Non-Application of Mind - An order passed without considering the reply and without assigning reasons is liable to be set aside as it suffers from non-application of mind. (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Director and Vice-Chairman of APMC under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 is sustainable in law, particularly when the show cause notice and the impugned order lack specific allegations and reasons.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2018, and directed that the petitioner shall continue as Vice-Chairman of the respondent no.2 APMC. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- speaking order
- non-application of mind
- Section 45(1) Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963
- removal of elected office bearer
- show cause notice
- reasoned order
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (04) 176
Writ Petition No.3442 of 2018
Mr. Anil S. Kilor for Petitioner; Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondent No.1; Mr. H.D. Dangre with Mr. R.B. Dhore for Respondent No.3
Durgabakshsingh Rampratapsingh Thakur
District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati; Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhamangaon Railway; Shrikant Bhimraoji Gawande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of removal from the post of Director and Vice-Chairman of APMC under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 11.06.2018 passed by respondent no.1 removing the petitioner from the post of Director and Vice-Chairman of respondent no.2 APMC.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was served with a vague show cause notice and the impugned order was passed without considering his reply and without assigning reasons, violating principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
On 20.06.2018, the High Court granted interim relief staying the impugned order, allowing the petitioner to continue as Vice-Chairman during the pendency of the petition.
Issues
Whether the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was vague and lacked specific allegations?
Whether the impugned order of removal under Section 45(1) of the Act was a speaking order and passed with due application of mind?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the show cause notice did not contain any specific allegations or material, and the impugned order was non-speaking and passed without considering his reply.
Respondents argued that the petitioner failed to implement the Government Resolution and caused losses, justifying his removal.
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 to remove an elected office bearer is drastic and must be exercised with due application of mind. The show cause notice must contain specific allegations and material, and the order must be a speaking order reflecting reasons. Failure to do so vitiates the order.
Judgment Excerpts
The show cause notice is vague and does not contain any specific allegations or material on the basis of which the proposed action was sought to be taken.
The impugned order is not a speaking order and does not reflect any application of mind by the respondent no.1.
The power under Section 45(1) of the Act is a drastic power and must be exercised with due application of mind.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3442 of 2018 challenging the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by respondent no.1. On 20.06.2018, the High Court granted interim relief staying the impugned order. The petition was heard finally and judgment was reserved on 28.02.2019 and pronounced on 09.04.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963: Section 45(1)
