- (1.) THIS petition filed by the petitioners, who claim to be the agriculturists, is directed against the two notifications issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Marketing Regulation Act, and as also against the action taken by the Collector, Wardha, for holding elections to all the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees in Wardha District. Notification was issued by the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance. Maharashtra State, on June 3, 1970, by which the Director declared his intention to extend the marketing area of the Agricultural produce Market committee, Arvi, in arvi Tahsil of the Wardha District so as to include in its area of panchayat Samiti, Arvi and pnachayat Samiti Karanja established under the Maharashtra Zilla parishad and panchayat samities act, 1961, and proper Arvi Town in Arvi Tahsil of wardha District and to regulate the marketing of all the commodities mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said notification in the area so extended. Objections and suggestions, if any, were invited by the Director within a period of one month from the date of publication of the notification in the Government Gazette. Copies of these notification were sent to the Manager, Government Printing Press, nagpur, for being published in the next issue of the Maharashtra Government Gazette, the chairman, Agricultural Produce Market Committe, Arvi, the Divisional Joint Registratio. co-operative Societies, Nagpur, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla parishad, wardha, the Regional publicity Officer, Nagpur, the Municipal Council, Arvi, the Mamlatdar or the block Development Officer, Arvi, as also the District Deputy Regoistrar, Co-operative Societies, wardha the district Agricultural Officer Wardha, and the co-operation and Industries Officer, Zilla Parishad, wardha with a request that a wide publicity should be given to the notification by passing it on the them market yard and prominent places. It appears that no objections or suggestions were receved to these notification and, therefore, a notification under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Marketing Regulation Act was issued by the Director on 23-9-1970 relating to the Marketing of Agricultural Commoditiies as specified in the notification with effect from the date of the publication of the said notification. Copies of this notification were also sent to the persons and the authotities to whom the copies of the first notification were sent. While issuing this notification as also the first notificationb, the Director was acting in exercise of the powers which were delegated to him by the State Government in the exercise of its powers under Section 58 of the Marketing Regulation Act by notification No. APM/1063/27543-C-1, dated september 15, 1967, published in part IV-B of the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated september 28, 1967. The Collector, wardha, then fixed an election programme for election of all the Agricultural produce marketing committees in Wardha District. There were, five Agricultural produce marketing committies and in each of these there were three constituencies, Viz. , (1) Traders' constituency, (2) Village panchayats Constituency and (3) Co-operative societies Constituency. The programme of elections prepared by the Collector was that the last date for filing in the nominations was March 31, 1971. The publication of the list of nominations after scrutiny was to be made on April 5, 1971, the date of withdrawal was fixed as April 25, 1971; date of polling was fixed as May 3, 1971, the date of counting of votes was fixed as May 7, 1971 and the date of publication of the results was fixed as May 9, 1971. By a memorandum dated March 17, 1971, the date of the election was changed to May 5, 1971. , but no change was made in the date of counting of votes or for declaration of the result.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners in the petition is that the notification dated september 23, 1970 was issued without publishing the said notification in accordance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. A similar challenge to the notification under section 3 of the marketing regulation Act is made by the petitioners. The petitioners claim that they had no notice at all of the publication of the notificaion under sections 3 and 4 and these notifications were therefore, illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Rules and of section 3 and 4 of the Marketing Regulation Act. Another ground on which the petitioners challenged the two notification issued by the Directors was that the notifications have been issued by the Director to whom the State Government could not have delegated its power under the Act. They claimed that they were entitled to contest the elections but could no do so because they had no knowledge of the notification as also of the programme of the elections fixed by the Collector.
(3.) IT is not disputed in this petition either by the respondent No. 1, who is the Agricultural produce Market Committee, Arvi, or by other respondents, Viz. , the collector, the Director, the State of Maharashtra and the Returnijng Officer for elections that the notification were not published in any newspaper. The marketing committee also admitted that the notification were not published in the Panchayat Offices. The Marketing Committee, however, contested the right of the petitioners to stand for the election since, according to the Committee, the last date for filing the nomination forms had already expired. The real contest is between the petitioners and the other respondets. The other respondents have stated that the maximum publicity was given to the two notifications. It was alleged on the basis of the information received from the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societities, Wardha, that the Marketing Committe and the Tahsildar concerned had pasted the notification in question on notice borads of the Marketing Committee and in the Chavadies in the villages in the area of operation and that the villagers in the villages concerned were also informed about the saiod notification by beat of drums. In addition to this, according to the contesting respondents, pamphlets were printed and supplied to the Gram Panchayats concerned for the purpose of wide publicity. It was, therefore, denied that the notifications were not publiched as required by Rule 3. In their return the respondents have also alleged that since no suggestions or objections were received after the first notification dated June 3, 1970 was published, no further inquiry was required to be made and the notification under Section 4 has been validly issued. They controverted the allegation that the petitioners did not know of the election programme and, according to the constesting respondents, the petitioners could have easily noticed the election programme which was sent to the various officers such as the Marketing Committee, Arvi, Pulgaon, Block Development Officers, Panchayat Samitit, Arvi and Karanjaing the same on their notice boards and that the programme was accordingly published. It was also alleged that the programme was published by pasting it on the notice boards of various offices in Marathi language and that the publication was made in accordance with the Act and the Rules. It is also denied that the Director did not have power to issue notification under Sections 3 and 4 of the Marketing Regulation Act.;