RAFIQ, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 15. 6. 2006 whereby the Authorized Officer (Additional District Collector, Kota) while drawing the proceedings for the election to the officer of Vice Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kota rejected the nomination of the petitioner for election to the aforesaid office. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondents by notification dated 29. 5. 2006 notified the list of the elected candidates from the electoral college of farmers and also the electoral college of traders/brokers. Name of the petitioner appeared in the electoral college of traders and brokers in that notification. Being the member of that college, the name of the petitioner was included in the list of elected members as is evident from Annexure-3 placed on record. Programme for conducting the election to the office of Chairperson and Vice Chairman of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kota was declared on 6. 6. 2006 by the Authorized Officer, namely, Additional District Collector as per Rule 32 (1) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963. While he received the nomination from the aforesaid members, name of the petitioner was proposed by Smt. Chandra Kanta Meghwal. Election was scheduled to take place on 14. 6. 2006. It is contended that while Smt. Santosh Kumari was declared elected as Chairperson in spite of the fact that only nomination received for the post of Vice Chairman was that of the petitioner, there being no other nomination filed, the Authorized officer by the aforesaid impugned order dated 15. 6. 2006, rejected the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that the aforesaid Smt. Ram Naraini Bai who had seconded nomination of the petitioner, had also seconded candidature of Smt. Chandra Kanta Meghwal for election to the post of Chairperson. In doing so, the Authorized Officer relied on the Circular dated 7. 6. 2006 issued by the Director-cum-Ex-officio Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Marketing Directorate, Jaipur. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the relevant clause 7 of the aforesaid circular as ultra vires of the Rules of 1963. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the nomination of the petitioner could not be rejected only because Smt. Ram Naraini Bai who had seconded her nomination, had also seconded nomination of Smt. Chandra Kanta Meghwal for election to the office of Chairperson. It was argued that the process of election had been initiated on 6. 6. 2006 by issuance of notification dated 6. 6. 2006, and therefore, circular dated 7. 6. 2006 which was issued later in point of time could not be retrospectively applied to an on-going election process. Learned counsel also argued that clause 7 of the aforesaid circular so far as it provides, that a person cannot propose or second both Chairperson or Vice Chairman is ultra vires of sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the Rules of 1963. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's being the only nomination, he was entitled to be declared elected and the impugned order rejecting his nomination is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned Deputy Government Advocate opposed the petition and argued that rule 32 (2) of the Rules of 1963 provides that candidates for the office of Chairman and Vide Chairman shall be separately proposed and seconded. Proposer and seconder shall not be the same person. It appears that the circular dated 7. 6. 2006 directed for separate proposer and seconder could be for the office of Chairperson and Vice Chairman, and there was no obnoxiousity in that provision of the circular. Learned counsel also relied on Rule 32 (11) of the Rules of 1963 which provides that if during the course of election of a Chairman or Vice Chairman any dispute arises as to the correctness or otherwise of the decision given or procedure followed by the Collector or the person authorized by him it shall be referred to the Secretary of the Board and the decision of the Secretary of the Board in respect of such dispute shall be final.
(3.) SHRI Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not have gone to the Secretary of the Board as the circular dated 7. 6. 2006 has been issued by a superior officer to the Secretary i. e. Director-cum-Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary of the Government and he could not challenge validity of circular before him, and therefore the writ petition was the only efficacious remedy. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the determination of dispute hinges upon the correct interpretation of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 32 which for the facility of reference are reproduced hereunder:- `` (1) The Collector or any person authorised by him in this behalf shall call the first meeting of a newly constituted market committee to elect its Chairman and Vice Chairman from amongst its members. For the purpose of this election, the Collector or the person authorised by him in this behalf shall preside over the meeting but shall not vote. (2) At such meeting, candidates for the office of Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be separately proposed and seconded. The proposer and seconder shall not be the same person. The names of all the candidates proposed and seconded shall be read out by the President of the meeting. (3) If there is only one candidate for each of the offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman he shall be declared to have been elected. '' The Director-cum-Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary to the Government while issuing the Circular dated 7. 6. 2006, in clause 7 of the circular had incorporated following provisions:- *********** ;