Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajeshri Arun Munghate, a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Gadchiroli, challenged an order of the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gadchiroli, dated 2 May 2014, which rejected her nomination as the representative of the Panchayat Samiti on the Market Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The Panchayat Samiti, in its meeting held on 17 December 2013, passed Resolution No. 9 electing the petitioner as its representative under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. However, the District Deputy Registrar held that since the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti (respondent no. 4) was willing to act as the representative, the petitioner could not be permitted. The petitioner argued that Section 13(1)(d) allows the Panchayat Samiti to elect any member, not necessarily the Chairman, and that Rule 40A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967, which requires communication of the Chairman's name, cannot override the parent Act. The court agreed, holding that Rule 40A must be read down to be consistent with Section 13(1)(d), and that the Panchayat Samiti's resolution electing the petitioner was valid. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to accept the petitioner's name as the representative.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Rule cannot override Act - Section 13(1)(d) Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 read with Rule 40A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 - The court held that Rule 40A, which mandates communication of the Chairman's name as representative, cannot override the parent Act which permits the Panchayat Samiti to elect any member as its representative. The rule must be read down to be consistent with the Act. (Paras 6-8) B) Agricultural Marketing - Nomination of Representative - Section 13(1)(d) Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - The Panchayat Samiti passed a resolution electing the petitioner, a member, as its representative on the Market Committee. The District Deputy Registrar rejected the nomination on the ground that the Chairman was willing to act. The court held that the Panchayat Samiti's choice prevails, and the Registrar cannot substitute its own preference. (Paras 2-4, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 40A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967, which requires the name of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti to be communicated as representative on the Market Committee, can override Section 13(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, which allows the Panchayat Samiti to elect any member as its representative.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 2 May 2014, and directed the respondents to accept the name of the petitioner as the representative of the Panchayat Samiti on the Market Committee.
Law Points
- Statutory interpretation
- Rule cannot override parent Act
- Representative of Panchayat Samiti on Market Committee
- Section 13(1)(d) Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Act
- 1963
- Rule 40A Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Rules
- 1967
