High Court

Legal Reasoning

(1) wp-7385-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.7385 OF 2025Pravin s/o Laxman LokhandeAge: 38 years, Occu.: Agri.R/o. Deodaithan, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahilyanagar...PetitionerVersus1.Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative,Societies Nashik Division Nashik.2.District Registrar Co-operative Societies,Ahilyanagar, Dist. Ahilyanagar.3.Agricultural Produce Market CommitteeShrigonda, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahilyanagar,Through its Secretary.4.Sajan s/o Sadashiv Pachpute,Age: 40 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o. Shrigonda, Tq. Shrigonda,Dist. Ahilyanagar...Respondents …Mr. M. S. Deshmukh h/f Mr. R. R. Karpe, Advocate for Petitioner.Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocatefor Respondent No.4.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.Reserved On : 24th JUNE, 2025.Pronounce On : 15th JULY, 2025. JUDGMENT:- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of theparties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.2.The petitioner impugns order dated 06.06.2025 passed byrespondent no.1-Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, (2) wp-7385-2025.odtNashik Division, thereby rejecting stay application filed bypetitioner against order of disqualification dated 23.05.2025 passedby respondent no.-2-District Registrar Co-operative Societies,Ahilyanagar.3.The petitioner has been elected as Chairman of respondentno.3-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shrigonda (for short“APMC, Shrigonda”) in the year 2023. The proceeding under Rule10(3) of Election Rules, 2017 was initiated seeking disqualificationof petitioner before respondent no.2, firstly on the ground thatpetitioner has withdrawn cash amount of Rs.2,66,730/- for hispersonal use on 10.02.2024 from Sub Market of Kashti bypressurizing employees, secondly, petitioner has illegally obtainedrecord of Market Committee from Secretary Mr. Dilip Debare,contrary to Rule 106 of Maharashtra Agricultural ProduceMarketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and Rules of1967 (for short “APMC Act 1963 and APMC Rules, 1967”) andthirdly, petitioner called meeting of APMC, Shrigonda under hisown signature by keeping Secretary in dark. It is accordinglyalleged that petitioner has frequently violated bye-laws as suchincurred disqualification in term of Rule 10(1)(i) of Election Rules,2017.4.The Assistant Registrar conducted enquiry into allegationsand submitted his report dated 02.04.2025 to respondent no.2, who (3) wp-7385-2025.odtissued notice dated 02.05.2025 and called upon petitioner to appearbefore him to response allegations made by respondent no.4 in hiscomplaint. The petitioner caused appearance and deniedallegations made in complaint contending that he has neverwithdrawn amount of Rs.2,66,730/- as alleged. Assistant Registrarin his report dated 02.04.2025 accepted petitioners defence.Looking to misconduct, charge of Secretary Mr. Dilip Debare waswithdrawn as per committee’s Resolution dated 25.01.2001. SinceSecretary had failed to conduct meeting of APMC, Shrigonda,petitioner and other Directors had called meeting in absence ofSecretary so as to to comply mandate of Bye-Laws No.33(1). Assuch, petitioner has not violated any provisions of Law, Rules orBye-Laws. It is further pointed out that in compliance withprovisions of Rule 107(1) of APMC Rules, 1967, cash amount isdeposited by petitioner between 07.02.2025 to 11.02.2025 in bankaccount maintained with DCC Bank, which is not been mentionedby Enquiry Officer in his report.5.The respondent no.2 after considering rival contentionspassed disqualification order dated 23.05.2025 against petitionerobserving that petitioner has kept in hand cash of APMC,Shrigonda contrary to Section 36(2) of APMC Act, 1963 read withRule 107 of APMC Rules, 1967. Similarly, petitioner has violatedRule 106 by illegally taking possession of record from Secretary (4) wp-7385-2025.odtand appointment of in-charge Secretary was contrary to Section2(r) of APMC Act, 1963 r/w. Rules 92 and 108 of APMC Rules,1967.6.The petitioner assailed aforesaid order of disqualification inAppeal before respondent no.1 as per Rule 10(5) of Election Rules,2017, so also filed application seeking stay to disqualification orderdated 23.05.2025. However, respondent no.1 rejected petitioner’sstay application vide impugned order dated 06.06.2025.7.Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for petitionervehemently submits that petitioner is democratically electedDirector of APMC, Shrigonda with statutory tenure of 5 years tohold post. He has been subjected to disqualification proceeding onfalse and frivolous grounds in pursuance to notice dated02.05.2025, purportedly issued under Rule 10(3) of Election Rules,2017. Mr. Deshmukh submits that respondent no.4, while holdingpost of Secretary acted contrary to the interest of APMC,Shrigonda, therefore, he was suspended vide Resolution passed byCommittee. Enraged by such action, ill-motivated complaint hasbeen filed against petitioner. The respondent no.2 withoutappreciating evidence on record and by expanding scope ofcomplaint made by respondent no.4, issued illegal notice dated02.05.2025 against petitioner and passed impugned order, which ispresently subject matter of statutory Appeal before respondent (5) wp-7385-2025.odtno.1. In this background, application for stay to impugned orderought to have been positively considered. Mr. Deshmukh furthersubmits that Rule 92 of APMC Rule, 1967 confers power withChairman for supervision, control and execution of activities ofMarket Committee. The Market Committee is empowered underRules 102 and 104 to impose penalty on employees. In exercise ofsuch powers, action was taken against Secretary. Later on,Secretary was restored with his charge. According to Mr.Deshmukh, finding as to violation of Section 36(2) of APMC Act,1963 is also based on erroneous appreciation of material, so alsocontrary to enquiry report submitted by Assistant Registrar.According to Mr. Deshmukh, though Rule 106 deals with powersand function of Secretary, he is under duty to make availablerecord to Chairman and Elected Committee and if Secretaryabsents himself unauthorizely, Chairman and Committee arejustified in adopting new proceeding books for passing Resolutionand confirming Minutes of earlier Meeting. According to Mr.Deshmukh, all such issues require detailed consideration by theAppellate Authority before the order is given finality.8.Per contra, Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate appearingfor respondent no.4 invites attention of this Court to observationsmade in enquiry report as well as order of disqualification andpoints out that on 10.02.2024 petitioner took Rs.2,66,730/- from (6) wp-7385-2025.odtcash received by APMC, Shrigonda for personal use, as evidentfrom voucher No.199 and cash book entry. However, to suppressaforesaid fact, petitioner forged record and created parallel cashbooks and attempted to conceal misappropriation. Mr. Dhorde hasalso invited attention of this Court to affidavits filed by Mr. ArunDhawale, in-charge of Kashti Sub Yard and submits that amountof Rs.10,97,044/- was due from petitioner as on 31.05.2025. Apartfrom this, he submits that petitioner illegally possessed record ofAPMC, Shrigonda by using force, contrary to provisions of Act,Rules and Bye-Laws. Mr. Dhorde would point out that in fact,petitioner admitted retention of cash and possession of record,which ought to have been in custody of Secretary. Similarly,petitioner recorded Minutes in new proceeding. As such,petitioner’s actions like committing financial irregularities,misappropriation, illegal possession of record and illegal issuanceof Minutes of agenda are inconsistent with relevant provisions ofAPMC Act, 1963, the Rules and Bye-Laws. Hence action ofdisqualification against petitioner by Competent Authority isjustified.9.Having considered submissions advanced on behalf ofrespective parties and on perusal of impugned order, it can beobserved that petitioner is duly elected Chairman of respondentno.3-AMPC, Shrigonda and subjected to disqualification under (7) wp-7385-2025.odtRule 10(3) of Election Rules, 2017 on complaint/applicationsubmitted by respondent no.4. The gist of allegations againstpetitioner is that he has illegally withdrawn cash amount ofRs.2,66,730/- for personal use on 10.02.2024, forceably possessedrecord of Market Committee from custody of Secretary andconducted meetings of APMC, Shrigonda by illegally issuingAgenda under his signature keeping Secretary in dark. It appearsthat, on the basis of aforesaid allegations/grounds, disqualificationof petitioner was proposed by respondent no.4. However expandedinquiry was conducted by Assistant Registrar on many moregrounds and enquiry report dated 02.04.2025 was submitted.Ultimately, after considering rival submissions, disqualificationorder is passed by respondent no.2, which is now subject matter ofAppeal filed under Rule 10(5) of Election Rules, 2017 beforeRespondent No. 1. An application for grant of ad-interim stay todisqualification order pending such Appeal was filed by petitionerhowever same has been rejected vide impugned order.10.Bare look to Scheme of Act and Rules framed thereunderalongwith Bye-Laws stipulates that Chairman, Committee andSecretary are bestowed with specified powers and duties to runbusiness of Market Committee. Chapter VI deals with MarketFunds. Section 36 provides for custody and investment of marketfunds. Rule 92 deals with functions of Chairman. Rule 100 deals (8) wp-7385-2025.odtwith suspension of employees. Rule 106 deals with power ofSecretary and specifies that he is custodian of record. Rule 108 (3)(i) deals with expenditures. The provisions of bye-lawssupplements Rules. It appears that, petitioner is subjected todisqualification proceeding under Rule 10(3) of Election Rules,2017 alleging breach of various provisions. The respondent no.2 isCompetent Authority to declare such disqualification. Looking toallegations against petitioner and his defence, multiple questions oflaw and facts are involved in present matter. Although respondentno.2 for the reasons recorded in order concluded that petitioner hasincurred disqualification and found him guilty of misconduct, factremains that order of disqualification would be final on decision byDirector in Appeal. Upon decision of Appellate Authority, personwho is disqualified shall cease to hold office from the date ofdecision. Thereafter, Market Committee is expected to fill upvacancy by co-opting a person eligible for being elected as amember as provided under Section 18 of APMC Act, 1963. Inbackdrop of legal position discussed above, the Appellate Authorityis expected to stay execution of disqualification order pending inappeal and decide appeal expeditiously.11.It is trite that, removal of elected representative byadministrative action has to be based on strong and impeccablematerial and cannot be founded on probabilities. The Appellate (9) wp-7385-2025.odtAuthority will have to consider all the aforesaid aspects and pass areasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing to allconcerned. In this backdrop, without much delving in to merits ofcontentions, it is in fitness of things that during pendency of appealbefore Director, disqualification order is kept in abeyance.12.Hence following order is passed:ORDERa.Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B).b.The Appellate Authority to decide Appeal as expeditiously aspossible and in any case, within period of three months from thedate of this order. Parties to co-operate.c. Till decision on appeal, disqualification order passed againstpetitioner be kept in abeyance.d.Rule is made absolute in above terms.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/July-2025