Case Note & Summary
Fifteen directors of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Amravati, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27 December 2011 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati, superseding the committee under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and appointing an administrator. The petitioners were elected in May 2008 for a five-year term. Following complaints of irregularities, an inquiry under Section 40(b) of the Act was conducted by an Inquiry Officer who submitted reports on 15 June 2010 and 08 March 2011. After receiving explanations from the committee, a show cause notice under Section 45 was issued on 12 July 2011. The petitioners replied on 09 August 2011. The District Deputy Registrar forwarded the papers to the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board for previous consultation as required by the proviso to Section 45(1). The Board passed a resolution on 22 October 2011 devising a procedure for consultation. The General Manager then heard the petitioners on 05 November 2011 and submitted a report to the Chairman (not to the Vice Chairman as per the procedure). On 19 December 2011, the Board informed the District Deputy Registrar to proceed in accordance with law. The supersession order was passed on 27 December 2011. At the hearing, the parties agreed to first address the petitioners' preliminary objections regarding the validity of the previous consultation and the necessity of an order under Rule 117(4) of the 1967 Rules. The petitioners contended that the consultation was invalid because the statute required consultation with the entire Board, whereas the actual consultation was only with the General Manager and thereafter by the Chairman/Vice Chairman, not the full Board. They argued the Board could not delegate its consultative function. They also urged that no order under Rule 117(4) accepting the inquiry report had been passed, and hence the report could not be used as a cause for supersession. The High Court, after examining the provisions of the Act, held that the mandatory previous consultation under Section 45(1) must be with the State Agricultural Marketing Board as a whole. The Board could not delegate this duty to a few members or office bearers. Since the consultation in this case was not with the full Board, the requirement of the statute was not met, and the supersession order was illegal. The court accordingly quashed the order dated 27 December 2011 and set aside the appointment of the administrator. The court did not deem it necessary to go into the other preliminary objection regarding Rule 117(4) as the petition succeeded on the first ground alone. The interim order restraining the administrator from taking charge was thus made absolute.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Statutory Consultation - 'Previous Consultation' under Section 45(1) - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 45(1) - The petitioners challenged the supersession order on the ground that the mandatory previous consultation with the State Agricultural Marketing Board was not done with the full Board but only with its Chairman and Vice Chairman, contrary to the statutory requirement. The court held that the expression 'previous consultation' means consultation with the Board as a whole and not merely with its office bearers or a few members. The Board cannot delegate its consultative function under the statute to its General Manager or other officers. As the consultation was only with the office bearers and not with the entire Board, the requirement of Section 45(1) was not satisfied, rendering the supersession order invalid. Held: The consultation must be with the full Board and any delegation or limited consultation vitiates the exercise of power. (Paras 5-6). B) Agricultural Marketing - Inquiry under Section 40 - Necessity of Order under Rule 117(4) - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967, Rule 117(4) - The petitioners contended that the inquiry report under Section 40 could not be used as a cause for supersession unless an order under Rule 117(4) was passed accepting the report after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected members. The court, having set aside the order on the ground of invalid consultation, did not decide this issue. However, the statutory scheme requires that before an inquiry report can form the basis of any action, an order under Rule 117(4) is essential. The issue was left open as the petition succeeded on the first preliminary objection. (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the previous consultation with the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board required under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 was validly carried out, and whether an order under Rule 117(4) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 is mandatory before using an inquiry report under Section 40 to supersede the committee.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of supersession dated 27.12.2011, and set aside the appointment of Administrator, holding that the mandatory previous consultation with the State Agricultural Marketing Board was not validly carried out as the consultation was not with the full Board but only with its office bearers.
Law Points
- previous consultation under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963 means consultation with the Board as a whole
- the Board cannot delegate its statutory duty of previous consultation to its office bearers or General Manager
- compliance with internal procedure does not cure absence of full Board consultation
- an order under Rule 117(4) of the 1967 Rules is necessary before using an inquiry report under Section 40 as a cause for action
