Vijay Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

C.K. Prasad, J.—By this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer made by the Petitioner is to quash the Gazette Notification dated 7th January, 2000 (Annexure-1) whereby the State Government in exercise of its power u/s 9(4) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, has nominated Respondent No. 8 as the Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Gaya.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ application are that the State Government in exercise of its power u/s 91 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), constituted the 8th Agricultural produce Market Committee, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) and nominated the Sub-divisional Officer its Chairman. Thereafter, by the impinged order, Respondent No. 8 who happens to be an elected member of the committee, has been nominated as the chairman. The Petitioner who claims to the voter of Agriculture Constituency No. 2 of the Committee, has challenged said notification.

learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that once the Sub-Divisional officer was nominated as the Chairman of committee by the State Government, exercise of the power u/s 9 the Act, without his removal after folding the procedures as provided u/s 14 of the Act, the State Government is not competent to appoint Respondent No. 8 as the Chairman of the committee.

Learned Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-I, as also the learned Counsel representing Respondent 8 submit that Respondent No. 8 was nominated as the Chairman of the limited after removal of the Sub-Divisional Officer as the Chairman as proved u/s 14 of the Act and according to them, it is correction of a mistake that the State Government had by appointing the Sub-Divisional Officer as the Chairman.

Having appreciated the rival sub-Division, I find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the State also the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 8. Section 9(4) of the Act reads as follows:

A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that an officer nominated by the State Government, shall be the Chairman of the Market Committee for two terms or six years after the passing of the Act and thereafter, the State Government will appoint the Chairman from the members of the Market Committee.

It is common ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer was appointed as the Chairman of the 6th Market Committee. According to Section 9(4) of the Act, the State Government was under obligation to appoint the Chairman from amongst the members of the Market Committee and it acted illegally by nominating Sub-Divisional Officer as the Chairman of the Committee.

As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner which has been supported by the learned Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, that without removal of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Respondent No. 8 ought not to have been nominated as the Chairman. I am of the opinion that the same has no merit. Section 14 of the Act reads as follows:

Removal of member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman from the Market Committee.--The State Government may, if it thinks fit on the recommendation of the Market Committee supported by at least two thirds of the total member of its member, remove any member, holding the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Market Committee elected or appointed under this Act, if such member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman has in opinion of the State Government, been guilty of neglect or misconduct in discharge of his duties or of any disgraceful conduct or has become incapable of performing duties as a member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman as the case may be:

Provided that no resolution recommending the removal of any such person shall be passed by the Market Committee unless the person to whom it relates has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such recommendation should not be made.

A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundant clear that the Chairman'' and other office bearers of the Market Committee can be removed on the ground of misconduct.

Here, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not been removed on account of any misconduct committed by him but on the ground that in the light of Section 9(4) of the Act, he ought not to have been appointed as the Chairman and Chairman ought to have been appointed from amongst the members of the Market Committee.

There is yet another impediment in the way of the Petitioner. This notification appointing Respondent No. 8 was published on 15th January, 2000. This writ application has been filed on 14th of August, 2001. Challenge to such notification ought to have been made at the earliest. Interference by this Court at this stage shall unsettle many settled matter. Further, the Sub-divisional Officer who was earlier nominated as the Chairman, has not chosen to challenge the impugned notification.

For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this writ application which is accordingly, dismissed.