KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) THE above batch of writ petitions have been filed by the Chairmen of respective Agricultural Market Committees, who were appointed as Chairman and members under the provisions of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (Act No.16 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By these writ petitions they have challenged the Telangana Ordinance No.1 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance) in particular clause -3 thereof as to its constitutional validity. By the said Ordinance clauses (a), (b) & (c) of sub -section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act are amended by reducing the number of members of the committee in various categories and the term of the office of the members. By clause -3 of the said Ordinance existing members, vice -chairmen and chairmen of the market committee are terminated prematurely in view of reduction of term. All the petitioners in the above writ petitions have been duly and validly appointed chairman -cum - member in various districts in the State of Telangana in 2013 except 7th petitioner in W.P. No.24877 of 2014 who was appointed on 3.2.2012. Basically, they are the members of the committee. All the Chairmen are to remain in their offices as such, subject to the provisions of Sections 5(6), 6(A) and 6(B) of the said Act and as a member subject to provision of Section 5(7) of the Act ordinarily for a period of three years under sub -section (3) of Section 5 of the said Act. In the present writ petitions the petitioners are concerned with reduction of the term of three years as mentioned above to two years; and clause -3 of the said Ordinance in particular, by which existing members, vice -chairman and chairman of the market committee are to cease to hold office consequent upon such reduction. They are also concerned with Government Order issued on 18.8.2014 purporting to implement clause -3 of the said Ordinance for removal of the petitioners and immediate appointment of such person or persons to discharge the functions of the market committee until market committee is reconstituted.
(2.) IN all the writ petitions, to challenge the aforesaid Ordinance, it is alleged that the said Ordinance is arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and also colourable exercise of power by the 1st respondent. The members qua Chairmen appointed under Section 5 of the said Act by the Government is to remain in office for a period of three years with a rider of extension which might be granted by the Government under Section 6 (2) for a period of one year subject to removal on other disability under the Act as above. According to them, the Chairmen are liable to be suspended under Section 6(A) and further they will be denuded of powers vested in them under Section 6(B). As members they are not liable to be removed nor do they cease to be members otherwise than provided in Section 5. In other words, Chairmen as well as members cannot be removed otherwise than procedure mentioned in the said Act during the period of three years and extended period. It is further alleged by clause -3, the Chairman and Vice -Chairman namely the petitioners herein are removed by the aforesaid colourable piece of legislation as punitive measure. The reduction of term of three years to two years is also impermissible constitutionally, and it cannot be applied to those who were already appointed. The said Ordinance has been issued with a political motive as in recent elections there was a change in Government and different political party has come to power and therefore the Government issued impugned Ordinance terminating all the Members, Vice -Chairman and Chairman to serve political purpose. Such power is not available to the Government under Constitution even if the same were passed by the legislature, as the amendment made, can be applied prospectively. Existing Members, Chairman and Vice -Chairman cannot be removed by giving retrospective operation thereof. The Ordinance Making Power cannot be exercised in such a manner as to deprive pre -existing rights under same very statute. The arbitrariness of the 1st respondent is palpable, and by passing above Ordinance terminating the term of the petitioners prematurely hostile discrimination has been meted out as there has been no corresponding amendment like clause -3 for premature removal of future members, vice -chairmen and chairmen, as they are protected by present procedure as to their tenure under the said Act. The petitioners and each of them have been singled out and classified in discriminatory manner for their removal summarily de hors the statutory protection and as such the same is liable to be struck down.
(3.) NO counter -affidavit has been filed as it was submitted by the learned Advocate General he wants to argue without the same as it is a pure question of law. All the learned counsel for the petitioners highlighting the grounds and facts mentioned in the respective affidavits in support of the writ petitions submit that the said Ordinance has been promulgated in order to sub -serve the political interest as the petitioners and each of them were appointed members and Chairmen by the previous Government run by different political dispensations. They and each of them are entitled to remain in office for a period of three years if not four years on extension subject to provisions of the said Act as to removal and suspension etc., from their respective dates of appointment, which took place in 2013 in case of all the petitioners except one that took place in 2012. But by virtue of clause -3 of the said Ordinance followed by the impugned Government Order they are removed prematurely ignoring procedural safeguard as provided in the Act. W hile passing the impugned Ordinance, unreasonable classification has been made as there has been no change as to term of office of the members of market committee for special markets as provided under Section 5 -A. There is no reason to classify within the same class as both the committees under Sections 5 and 5A of the said Act discharge same function to achieve purpose of the said Act. It is not understood why, what is reasonable nexus for this amendment to achieve this object. In other words, there is no intelligible differentia for this classification.;