- (1.) Prem Chand Jain and J.M. Tandon, JJ. - In this petition the vires of the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act), which reads as under, have been called in question :- "12. (1) to (6) x x x (7) On and from the date of commencement of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1978 :- (a) all members, including the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, whether nominated or otherwise, of every Committee functioning immediately before such commencement shall cease to hold office as such members; and (b) the State Government shall constitute Committees in accordance with the provisions of this section : Provided that the State Government may, until such Committees are constituted in accordance with the provisions of this section, appoint such person or persons, as may be considered suitable in this behalf, to exercise the powers and perform the functions of such Committees. Explanation :- For the purposes of the proviso to clause (b) of Sub-section (7), any person or persons appointed by the State Government before such commencement under Section 36 to carry out the functions of a Committee shall be deemed to be a person or persons appointed by the State Government to exercise the powers and perform the functions of those Committees for which they were appointed."
(2.) The facts, on which there is no dispute, are that the petitioner was appointed a member of the Market Committee, Jagadhari vide notification No. 495 Agr II(5)-76/4439, dated February 18, 1976, by the Haryana Government in exercise of its powers conferred on it by Section 12 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act). The petitioner was elected Chairman of the Market Committee, Jagadhari, on March 8, 1976. Under Section 14 of the Principal Act, a member of a Market Committee, including a Chairman, has to hold office for a period of three years. The petitioner having been appointed on February 18, 1976, was to remain in office upto February 17, 1979. However, in view of the amendment made in Section 12, the petitioner has ceased to be the Chairman as well as the member of the Market Committee. It is in these circumstances that the vires of the aforesaid provision have been called in question.
(3.) The argument of Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the aforesaid provision offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India as a discriminatory treatment had been meted out to the members of the committee functioning immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act inasmuch as these members had been removed forthwith without following the procedure laid down in Sections 15, 16A, 35 and 36, while the members to be appointed after the enforcement of the Amending Act can be removed only by following the procedure laid down in the said sections. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dinnapati Sadasive Reddy, Vice-Chancellor v. Chancellor, Osmania University, 1967 AIR(SC) 1305;