Gopal Nath vs. The State Of Assam And 4 Ors

Held

The Court held that the power to grant an extension to a market committee beyond the initial three-year period is a discretionary power vested in the Government under Section 9(3) of the Act of 1972. However, this discretion must be exercised fairly and transparently, ensuring equal treatment for all similarly situated persons. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that a similarly situated committee in Tinsukia had been granted a six-month extension. While the respondents argued that the election process was being expedited, the Court noted the absence of any officer appointed to take over the committee's functions post-expiry. Therefore, the Court directed the respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's representation dated August 28, 2017, and pass a reasoned order addressing the request for extension. Until a decision is made on the representation, the status quo as on the date of the order is to be maintained. The Court also directed the concerned authorities to expedite the election process as expeditiously as possible.

Facts

The petitioner, formerly the elected Chairman of the Dhing Market Committee, served a three-year term ending on September 6, 2017. The Assam Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rule, 1957, mandates that elections for a new committee should be initiated within three months before the expiry of the current term. As no steps were taken by the authorities, the petitioner submitted representations on June 28, 2017, and July 31, 2017, requesting a one-year extension of the committee's tenure under Section 9(3) of the Act of 1972. The respondents indicated that an election authority had been constituted and instructed to expedite the election process, rendering an extension unnecessary. The delay in holding elections was attributed to the imposition of GST, causing financial strain. The petitioner highlighted that a similarly situated committee in Tinsukia had been granted a six-month extension, arguing for equal treatment. The judgment notes that no officer had been appointed to take over the committee's functions post-expiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of the Dhing Market Committee's tenure beyond its expiry date, as per Section 9(3) of the Act of 1972, considering the delay in conducting elections? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to initiate election processes within the stipulated period. They argued that since a similarly situated committee in Tinsukia was granted a six-month extension, the petitioner's request for extension should also be considered fairly and transparently, especially as no officer had been appointed to take over the committee's functions. They relied on the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated persons. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents submitted that an election authority had been constituted and instructed to expedite the election process, thus negating the need for an extension. They also cited the imposition of GST as a reason for the delay in holding elections, leading to financial difficulties. They referred to the case of Wahedur Rahman Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 782/2014) to argue that a committee cannot claim an extension as a matter of right.