Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Sheshrao Thakre, was the Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Katol. He filed a writ petition challenging the notice of no-confidence motion issued against him by respondent nos. 3 to 15, who were directors of the committee. The notice was issued under Section 14(4) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) (No-Confidence Motion Against Chairman) Rules, 2012. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid because some directors had not signed it, and that the notice was not served on all directors. The respondents argued that the notice was signed by 13 out of 17 directors, which exceeded the required 1/3rd, and that service was effected by registered post. The court examined the provisions and found that the notice was validly issued. It held that the absence of signatures of some directors did not invalidate the notice, as the requirement was only that the notice be signed by at least 1/3rd of the total members. The court also applied the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, noting that the notice was sent by registered post. The court declined to interfere with the proceedings at this stage and directed the petitioner to raise all objections before the Presiding Officer, who would decide them in accordance with law. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Agriculture Produce Market Committee - No-Confidence Motion - Validity of Notice - Section 14(4) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and Rule 5 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) (No-Confidence Motion Against Chairman) Rules, 2012 - The petitioner challenged the notice of no-confidence motion on grounds that some directors had not signed the notice and that the notice was not served on all directors. The court held that the notice was valid as it was signed by more than the requisite number of directors (1/3rd of total members) and that the absence of some directors' signatures did not invalidate the notice. The court also held that the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applied to the notice sent by registered post. (Paras 2-10) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Statutory Proceedings - No-Confidence Motion - The court held that the High Court should not interfere with the proceedings of the no-confidence motion at the stage of notice, as the validity of the motion could be raised before the Presiding Officer. The court directed the petitioner to raise all objections before the Presiding Officer, who would decide them in accordance with law. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice of no-confidence motion against the Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee was validly issued under Section 14(4) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) (No-Confidence Motion Against Chairman) Rules, 2012, and whether the High Court should interfere with the proceedings in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to raise all objections before the Presiding Officer, who shall decide them in accordance with law. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion
- Agriculture Produce Market Committee
- Notice of motion
- Validity of notice
- Section 14(4) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963
- Rule 5 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) (No-Confidence Motion Against Chairman) Rules
- 2012
- Quorum
- Absence of directors
- Presumption of service
- Writ jurisdiction
- Interference with statutory proceedings
