Market Committee Jaitu and others vs State of Punjab and others

Ajit Singh Bains, J.—The Market Committee, Jaitu, along with its two members Vasakha Singh and Kartar Singh, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the State Government dated 8th November, 1976 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner-Committee is constituted under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the elected members of this Committee. Respondent No. 3. Bharpur Singh, was nominated as the Chairman of the Committee for two years. The members of the Committee were not satisfied with his working and he lost their confidence. The members wanted him to convene an emergent meeting but this was not convened. Ultimately, the members of the Committee unanimously passed a resolution of no confidence against the Chairman on 27th August, 1977. This resolution of his removal was sent to the Board for approval. The Board vide its resolution dated 21st September, 1976, authorised its Chairman to take necessary action and delegated its powers to him. The Chairman of the Board by office order dated 21st October, 1976, confirmed the resolution of the Market Committee dated 27th August, 1976; and the same were communicated to the Market Committee. The Government vide its order dated 12th October, 1976, cancelled the delegation of powers to the Chairman and also set aside the order of confirmation of the resolution of the Market Committee. It is against this order (Annexure P. 8) of the Government annulling the confirmation, made by the Chairman, of the resolution of the Market Committee, that the present writ petition has been filed.

Mr. Bindra, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Government could not annul the resolution of confirmation by the Chairman of the Board, once the Chairman was delegated the powers by the Board. Mr. K.S. Doad, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, contended that the Government has ample powers under sub-sections (8) and (17) of section 3 and section 42 of the Act. Sub-section (8) of section 3 of the Act is in the following terms:--

The State Government shall exercise superintendence and control over the Board and its officers and may call for such information as it may deem necessary and, in the event of its being satisfied that the Board is not functioning properly or is abusing its powers or is guilty of corruption or mismanagement, it may suspend the Board and, till such time as a new Board is constituted, make such arrangements for the exercise of the functions of the Board as it may think fit :

Provided that the Board shall be constituted within six months from the date of its suspension.

A reading of this provision shows that the State Government shall exercise superintendence and control over the Board and its officers and may call for such report as it may deem necessary and if it is satisfied that the Board is not functioning properly, it may suspend the Board. This whole sub-section deals with the supersession of the Board, Such powers which are now being challenged are not within the purview of this provision.

Sub-section (17) of section 3 reads as under:--

(i) The State Government may delegate to the Board or its Chairman or Secretary any of the powers conferred on it by or under this Act; and

(ii) The Board may, under intimation to Government delegate any of its powers to its Chairman, Secretary or any of its officers.

A reading of this provision shows that the State Government can delegate to the Board or Its Chairman or Secretary any of the powers conferred on it by or under the Act and the Board can, under intimation to the Government, further delegate any of its powers to its Chairman, Secretary or any of its officers. Admittedly, the Board has delegated the powers to the Chairman to deal with the matter in dispute u/s 3(17)(ii) of the Act and the Chairman has exercised its powers in accordance with this provision in confirming the resolution of the Committee removing its Chairman.

Section 42 of the Act deals with the revisional powers of the Government and is in the following terms:--

Notwithstanding any in this Act, the State Government shall have the power of reversing or modifying any order of the Board or any of its officers passed or purporting to have been passed under this Act, if it considers it to be not in accordance with this Act or the rules or bye-laws made thereunder.

A plain reading of the section shows that the Government can reverse or modify any order of the Board or any of its officers passed under the Act if the order is not in accordance with the Act or rules or bye laws made thereunder. The record has been produced. No reasons are give as to why the Government withdrew the powers of delegation in this matter from the Chairman and entrusted it to the Board. It is also not shown as to how the delegation of power by the Board under clause (ii) of sub-section (17) of section 3 is against the provisions of this Act or rules or any bye-laws. Hence such an order, which is now challenged, could not be passed u/s 42 of the Act. Mr. Daod then placed reliance on section 16 (2) of the Act wherein he has pointed out that earlier every resolution for the removal of any officer-bearers passed by the Committee was subject to the confirmation by the Chairman and now this provision was amended in the year 1963 by Punjab Act No. 40 of 1963 by which instead of the Chairman, the word ''Board '' is included. His argument is that the intention of the legislature is that instead of the Chairman, the board should exercise such powers and in this view of the matter, the Government rejected the delegated powers of the Chairman given by the Board and directed the Board to exercise these powers. 1 do not find any merit in this contention either. If the Legislature had the intention to give every power to the Board and not to the Chairman then it could easily amend clause (ii) or section 3(17) of the Act where the Board is authorised to delegate any of its powers to its Chairman, Secretary or any of its officers. The legislature could easily delete this power of the Board, since this power of the Board is not taken away and the Board still exercises this power and has exercised it in the instant case, the Government''s action could not be defended u/s 16 (2) of the Act. The whole scheme of the Act shows that the Board is to be elected and the Market Committees are also to be elected, the procedure for the election of the Market Committee is also given and the functioning of the Board and the Market Committees is on democratic basis. Although the powers of supersession arc there, yet the Board or the Committee can be superseded to the maximum period of six months and after that the Board is to be constituted in accordance with the rules. In the present case, all the members of the Committee are against the Chairman, who was nominated by the Government, his functioning has become impossible and it is in this situation that the members of the Committee unanimously moved the resolution of no confidence and removed him.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order, Annexure P. 8, is quashed. No cost.