Arjun Singh Raghuvanshi and others vs Avendra Singh Raghuvanshi and others

Dr. T.N. Singh, J.

On admitted facts, a short and simple question of some importance has fallen for our decision in this matter.

The Petitioner was elected a member of the Mandi Samiti ("Market Committee") of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ashoknagar. He contested the election as "agriculturist" but his election was declared void on 15-1-1986 in an election-petition presented to the Collector under Rule 43 of M P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Adhisuchana Prakashan Riti, Bharsadhak Samiti Tatha Mandi Samiti Gathan) Niyam, 1974, for short the "Niyam". As he has challenged that decision in this petition, let it be stated that at the relevant time, he was admittedly a "Patel" appointed under the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, for short, the ''Code''; and his election was set aside on the ground that under Rule 7 (iv) of the Niyam be was not eligible for election. That provision we quote:

Disqualification for membership-

No person shall be eligible for being elected as a member of the market committee if-

(1) ...

(2) ...

(3) ...

(4) he is a servant of the Government or a market committee or a local authority, and is remunerated by salary or honorarium.

We have considered it appropriate to look first at the object and scheme of the parent law, namely, M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973, for short the "Adhiniyam." According to its long title, it is meant to "provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment and proper administration of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Madhya Pradesh." Section 2 (1) (b) defines the term "agriculturist" to mean a person whose main source of livelihood is dependent on production or growth of agricultural produce and who.. " (emphasis added) The term "market committee" is defined to mean a committee constitued u/s 11. Section 7 provides for establishment of the Market Committee and as per Sub-section (3), "notwithstanding any thing contained in any enactment for the time being in force, every market committee shall for all purposes, be deemed to be a local authority (emphasis added). Section 11 of the Adhiniyam provides for constitution of ''Market Committee" and contemplates that not less than two-third of the elected members are representatives of agriculturists" Possesing such qualifications as may be prescribed" and that not more than one-third are representatives of traders (emphasis added). Members of market committee hold office for 5 years and the Chairman and other members of the market committee are paid honorary sitting fees, travelling allowances and other allowances. A Chairman is elected from amongst the representatives of agriculturists and the Vice-Chairman by the elected members of the market committee from amongst themselves. Section 25 (2) (b) provides that Chairman and Secretary of the Market Committee may jointly execute contract or agreement on behalf of Market Committee where the total value of the contract or agreement does not exceed rupees one thousand and in any other case another member of the Commitee, authorised by resolution, has to join them. Power is vested u/s 50 in the Market Committee and Chairman to impose penalties under the Adhiniyam on any licensed "marketing functionaly" or seller.

Although the Market Committee has been vested with the status of a "local authority" to signify its autonomous character, the effect of that is substantially diluted by direct and indirect official control exercised on its activities by the Director of Mandis. He is empowered to "remove" the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and also to "supersede" the Committee itself. To maintain its autonomous character, the Committee is required obviously to be constituted with independent members to fulfil effectively the role the Legislature has contemplated for it. Local problems concerning local "agriculturists" and "traders" and conflict in interest inter seis resolved meaningfully and purposefully at local level and to achieve that object the Market Committee has been granted an autonomous role in that regard. The object of Rule 7 (iv) of the Niyam has to be understood in this context. If a person elected as a member of the Market Committee is a Government servant, his credibility and capacity may be both at stake. He may be influenced, on the one hand, by superior officers, and on the other hand, he may over bearing (even if not so influenced) in exercising his functions and that may have a baneful effect on the activities of the Market Committee.

It cannot also be forgotten that duties and responsibilities of a person who is a Government servant which are attached to that status shall always supervene other pursuits and avocations of such a person to the extent even of interdicting those. Bearing this imperative in mind, we are of the view that Rule 7 (iv) of the Niyam has to be construed also in the context of Rule 5, besides Section 11 of the Adhiniyam. Even an "agriculturist" cannot be elected u/s 11 as member of Market Committee if his entry to the electoral field is barred at the threshold by Rules 5 and 7. An "agriculturist" who suffers any of the disqualifications mentioned in Rule 7 is debarred by Rule 5 to contest an election u/s 11.

We do not think if there is any substance in Petitioner''s case urged by his counsel that Petitioner being an "agriculturist" he did not suffer disqualification under Rule 7 (iv). Indeed, the undeserved emphasis on his "main source of livelihood" being agricultural pursuit, pressed by counsel, ignores his status as a "Patel". His case is also thata "Government Servant" he is not, though he is a Patel; and that he did not receive as remuneration any "salary or honorarium." This two-fold contention may, however, be examined.

Rules are framed u/s 258 of the Code providing for appointments of Patels. Rule 4 provides for application for the office of Patel being invited and enquiry into those are contemplated for ascertaining eligibility of each applicant. As per Rule 8 Enquiring Officer is empowered to ascertain the wishes of the recorded Bhumiswamis of the village and under Rules 9and 10 "voting" is also contemplated. Under Rule 11 Collector is authorised to select for appointment as Patel, as far as may be the applicant securing largest number of votes. Appointment is made by the Collector of person elected on his executing bond for specified amount. According to Rule 17 (1), "the remuneration payable to a Patel shall be in the form of commission of land revenue and miscellaneous revenue collected by him village-wise". Duties of a patel are enumerated severally and separately under Clauses (1) to (14) of Rule 18 in addition to the duties mentioned in Section 224 of the Code. They are, cumulatively, too numerous and severally, onerous as well.

We have considered it legitimate to refer alto to the provisions of M. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, for short, "Conduct Rules", as an aid to divining the object and ambit of the disqualification contemplated under Rule 7 (iv) of the Niyam of these rules Rule 2 (b) defines a "Government Servant" to mean person appointed to any civil services on post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh". Rule 3 contemplates inter alio that a Government Servant has to act under the directions of his superior officers and wherever practicable, he may obtain the direction in writing. Rule 5 (6) contemplates that "No Government servant shall canvass or otherwise interfere with or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any Legislature or local authority". (Emphasis added). An express provision is contemplated under Rule 16 against Government servant engaging directly or indirectly in any trade or business and his undertaking any other employment. However, he is allowed to engage in any "Honorary or charitable work or occasional work of a literacy, artistic or scientific character subject to the condition that his official duties do not thereby suffer". A Government servant is also prohibited from accepting any fee for any work done by him for any public body without sanction of the prescribed authority.

In our opinion the case of a Government servant under Rule 7 (iv) of the Niyam is not the same as the case of a servant of a Market Committee or a local authority though the disqualification is attracted equally to those persons. In the case of a Government servant what is of immediate significance is the fact that he cannot act and continue as Government servant in violation of the "Conduct Rules". For services rendered, he is compensated as any other employee is, but his employer''s powers are of a different character and dimension. Admittedly, Government can make statutory rules regulating variously service conditions of its employees; it can provide, inter alia, for wages or salary to be paid to them in any particular manner or mode. The status of a Government servant is not dependent at all on the mode of payment to him of recompense for services rendered by him. But, it is dependent directly on the source of his appointment and on nature of his rights, duties and responsibilities as those have a statutory character. Accordingly, the Patel, even if he does not receive a fixed salary like any other Government servant, holds that status for other reasons. For this view we find support in the definition of the term "Government servant" we read in Rule 2 (b) of the "Conduct Rules". In similar circumstances, a question arose in the case of State of Assam and Others Vs. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta, as to whether a"Mauzadar" appointed in accordance with the provisions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, held a "civil post" and there existed the relationship of master and servant between him and the State. In that case the Mauzadar was remunerated likewise by payment of commission and not salary, but their Lordships held that his appointment by the Deputy Commissioner and the fact that he was to work under his supervision and also the nature of his duties contemplated under the terms of his appointment under the relevant statutory provisions made him a Government servant and holder of a civil post.

In this context it may be recalled that patel''s public duties enumerated in Section 224 of M. P. Land Revenue Code and under Rule 18 of the relevant rules are too numerous and his duties are not confined to collection of "cesses and taxes imposed by Gram Panchayat". He has to do inspection of survey marks and boundaries marks in the village and inspect also works of Taccavi advances granted and report defaults concerning the same. He is responsible even for maintenance of Register of Births and Deaths in the village He is required to report commission in or near the village of any non-bailable offence including offences under M. P. Game Act and Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act. He is required to report occurrence in or near such village of any sudden or unnatural death. He has to supervise bazars and fairs and other public gatherings within the limits of his village. His statutory duties u/s 224 require him to collect all "cesses payable through him" and such other Government dues ordered to be collected by him. He is required to furnish reports regarding state of his village to the Collector in prescribed manner at intervals specified. He has to control and superintend work of the kotwar (village watchman) so on and so forth. A patel''s appointment being made by the Collector and that too under statutory provisions ("Code") and his duties and responsibilities being connected with the affairs of the State and being also of statutory character, his status as a Government servant is undisputable. Two decisions of this Court, cited on the nature and character of patel''s office, may be noticed as a similar controversy arose in those cases. A patel is held ineligible to contest election to the Office of Panch and Sarpanch, in Mohanlal Gupta 1968 RN 636 : 1968 JLJ 1045 and Halke Mahate 1969 JLJ SN 45 respectively taking the view that he was a Government servant and was debarred to do so under relevant statutory provision.

What is of signal significance in this context is the bar postulated under Rule 5 (4) of the "Conduct Rules" against participation of a Government servant in an election of a "local authority" even. As per Section 7 (3) of the Adhiniyam, as noticed above, a Market Committee is deemed to be a "local authority" and that too "for all purposes", notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force. A patel thus suffers, under these provisions, a threshold disqualification. If elected, other restrictions made it impossible for him to act like any other ordinary member of the Market Committee. He is debarred from accepting any fee and allowance available to Chairman, Vice Chairman and member of a Market Committee. That apart, even as a member-representative of "agriculturists", despite being eligible for Chairman''s office, his involvement directly or indirectly in any trade or business being prohibited, it would not be possible for him, if elected as a Chairman, to discharge the duties of that office by executing contracts etc. On behalf of the Market Committee, besides, there may be occasions when he may have to impose fines under the Adhiniyam and to being a party to resolutions passed by Market Committee but in discharging those functions. As also other functions of his Office, he may suffer constraints of conflict arising from his dual role.

Although much argument was advanced at the Bar on the purport of the term "Salary" and "Honorarium" used in Rule 7 (iv) aforesaid, ve(sic) reiterate the view that for ascertaining any person''s status as "Government servant" interpretation of those terms has little significance. We have looked into the meaning of the term "Salary" given in Oxford English Dictionary. Any remuneration for services rendered is regarded as "salary" though it is usually understood to mean fixed payment made periodically to a person as compensation for regular work. The meaning of word "Honorarium" is given in that Dictionary as a fees for (professional) services rendered Decisions cited on this aspect of the case may also be examined. Reference to Geste-tner Duplicators Gestetner Duplicators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, is misconceived. The question there was of deduction permissible under the Income Tax Act and the decision depended on the statutory definition of "salary" given in the relevent rules Another decision in The Accountant General, Bihar and Another Vs. N. Bakshi, on the connotation of the term "remuneration", is obviously of little assistance. Rameshchandra Baboti 1973 JLJ 932 is a decision of this Court but that relates to the meaning of the term "honorary"'' and is not of much assistance. Whatever view we take on the interpretation of the two terms, the conclusion which is inescapable is that patel''s remuneration being specified in terms of compensation duly prescribed under relevant statutory provision, he cannot be said to be acting in purely honorary capacity in discharging his duties as a patel. The object of the requirement of payment of "salary" or "honorarium" in Rule 7 (iv) of the Niyam is to stress merely non-independent character of the person concerned and it is illustrative of master-servant relationship.

It is this Court''s constitutional duty to ensure that the object and purpose of the Adhiniyam and Niyam are duly and effectively fulfilled. It is also our duty to harmonise the provisions of several enactments herein noticed and discussed. Any person who is elected as a member/Chairman/ Vice-Chairman of Market Committee must be able to discharge effectively the duties and functions of his office and also to enjoy the privileges attachhed to the Office. The eligibility provision of the Adhiniyam and Niyam are to be construed, therefore, strictly to subserve that purpose. For the same reason, the role of the "Conduct Rules" to mark out the ambit of the eligibility provision became apparent to us. If the patel was a Government servant, his constitutional obligation to discharge duties of his office diligently and faithfully and conduct himself in the manner prescribed under those rules could not be overlooked.

In the premises aforesaid, we are of the view that the Petitioner being a patel, appointed under the Code, it was rightly held in the impugned order passed in the election petition that he was disqualified under Rule 7(iv) of the Niyam to contest the election.

In the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.