- (1.) This petition has been filed on behalf of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and its Chairman, Jathedar Tota Singh for quashing the order of suspension of the Board dated19-5-1987, Annexure P/9.
(2.) The said Board was constituted on 15-9-1986 vide notification, Annexure P/1. According to the said notification, the said Board was constituted for a period of three years with effect from 17-9-1986 as provided under S.3(4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S. 3 of the Act provides that the State Government may establish and constitute a State Agricultural Market Board, consisting of a Chairman to be nominated by the State Government and fourteen other members of whom six shall be officials and eight non-officials, to be nominated by the State Government in the manner provided thereunder. The said Board was constituted when the Akali Government was in power in the State of Punjab. The said Akali Government headed by Shri Surjit Singh Barnala was dismissed by the President on 12-5-1987 and the Presidential Rule was imposed on the State of Punjab. According to the petitioners, the Governor of Punjab, issued Press statement that the Government had decided to remove all the non-official Chairman of all the State Corporations and Boards and this was first major political decision taken by the Government of Punjab after imposition of Presidential Rule. Copy of the press report dated 14-5-1987 appearing in the Indian Express is attached as Annexure P/2. In execution of that policy decision, Governor of Punjab removed various non-official Chairman of various Corporations. According to the news item which appeared in the Tribunal dated 16-5-1987, copy Annexure P/3, Chairman of the Khadi Village Industries Board and various other non-official Chairman were removed but it was mentioned therein that the Government had not taken the decision about the removal of the Chairman of the Marketing Board as his appointment was a and'term appointmentand', and in case the Government decides to remove him, he will have to be paid salaries and other allowances for the remaining period of his term. In order to overcome this difficulty, the State Government decided to implement its political decision and issued a show cause notice to the Chairman as to why Marketing Board should not be suspended. Copy of the show cause notice is Annexure-P/4. According to the petitioner, in the show cause notice, seven items were mentioned on the basis of which the Government had taken a decision to suspend the Board. Out of seven charges, six related to the period prior to the Constitution of the Board. Only Charge No. 1 related to the period of the present Board. However, reply to the said show cause notice was sent vide copy Annexure P/5. It was pleaded that according to the Act, the functions of Board and its office bearers were separately defined and the Marketing Board is entirely different from its office bearers. The relevant sections which define the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Board are tabulated in the form of Annexure-P/8. According to the petitioners, neither the notice issued by the State Government Annexure-P/4 nor the impugned order, copy filed as Annexure P/9 relate to the functions, duties and responsibilities of the Board. Board could only be suspended if it is not functioning properly or if it is abusing its powers or if it is guilty of corruption or mismanagement. The Board could not be suspended for the fault of any of its employees or the office bearers. None of the allegations mentioned in the notice relate to any of the duties which are assigned to the Board under the Act. No order of suspension of the Board could be passed.
(3.) The said order of suspension, Annexure P/9 has been challenged on the ground that it was mala fide and was passed simply to achieve the object of removing the petitioner No. 2 as Chairman of the Board. The power conferred upon the Government under S.3(8) of the Act has been exercised in colourable way to achieve the purpose of wrecking vengeance of the Chairman of the Board appointed by the previous Government. The allegations made in the show cause note are absolutely without any basis. Even if such allegations may be assumed to be of substance, such allegations do not amount to abuse of power.;