Ram Prasad vs. The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
Held
The Court held that while the extension of a marketing committee's term under Section 9(3) of the Act of 1972 is indeed a discretionary power of the government, this discretion must be exercised in a fair and transparent manner. The Court noted that materials presented indicated that the terms of similarly situated market committees had been extended by the government. Since the reasons for the non-holding of elections could not be attributed to the petitioners, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to a fair consideration of their representation. The Court reasoned that the petitioner continues to head a committee that is still in office, making fair consideration of their request imperative. The Court directed respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07/07/2017, taking into account the recommendation of respondent no. 3 and the decisions made for other similarly situated committees, and thereafter pass a reasoned order. Until this exercise is completed, no further action would be taken under Section 48 of the Act of 1972. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Chairman of the North Lakhimpur Regulated Market Committee, filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondents regarding the constitution of a new committee. The existing committee was notified on 27/02/2014, with its first meeting on 10/10/2014. Its term, as per Section 9(1) of the Act of 1972, is three years, expiring on 09/10/2017. Rule 9(a) of the Assam Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1975, mandates initiating election steps at least three months prior to term expiry. No such steps were taken. The petitioner represented to the Government on 07/07/2017 for an extension, but no action was taken. The respondents cited financial crisis due to GST implementation and closure of check gates as reasons for the delay in elections. The Board recommended extension of marketing committees until elections are held.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petitioner has a right to maintain the writ petition for extension of the term of the marketing committee, given that the extension is a matter of discretion under Section 9(3) of the Act of 1972. 2. Whether the inaction of the respondents in initiating steps for holding elections and considering the petitioner's representation for extension is arbitrary and unfair. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that despite the discretionary power of the government to extend the term, their representation dated 07/07/2017 for extension, filed well before the expiry of the term, has not been considered. They highlighted that similarly situated market committees have had their terms extended. The petitioner contended that the delay in elections was not attributable to them and that they are entitled to fair consideration of their request. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that elections could not be held on time due to financial crisis caused by GST implementation and the closure of check gates. However, they also stated that the Board had recommended the extension/continuity of marketing committees until elections are held. Mr. Chamaria, for respondent nos. 1 and 2, referred to a previous High Court decision (WP(C) 782/2014) to argue that extension is not a matter of right, implying the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 9(1), Section 9(3), Rule 9(a), Section 48
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WP(C) 6162/2017 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Mahant a, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learne d Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Agricultural Marketin g Board representing respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appears for respondent no.
The writ petitioner is the Chairman of the North Lakhimpur Regulated Mar ket Committee, which was notified on 27/02/2014. Where-after, the first meeting of the Committee was held on 10/10/2014. As per the provision of Section 9(1) of the Act of 1972, the term of the said Committee is for 3 years unless extended by the Government under Section 9(3) of the Act of 1972. As per the provision of Rule 9(a) of the Assam Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1975, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 is required to initiate steps for holding the Election f or constituting a new Committee at-least 3 (three) months prior to expiry of the term of the existing committee but in this case, no such
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.