Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme court has refused to interfere with an order passed by Bombay High Court whereby, it had refused to grant any fresh extension for conduct of elections at the Nashik Agricultural Produce Committee limited, noting that the extension of the term cannot be read to mean an indefinite extension.

The election to the Nashik Agricultural Produce Committee was held in the year 2015 and the term of office as stipulated in Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 expired on 19th August, 2020.

Thereafter, invoking the power available in terms of the second proviso to Section 14(3) of the Act of 1963, the period within which the general election had to be held, was extended twice over. Even after such extensions, the elections were not held.

A bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narsimha noted that two orders concerning Agricultural Produce Market Committees’ elections, were passed by two different Benches of the Bombay High Court.

First order was passed on 18th November, 2021 by a Bench at Aurangabad directing that the elections to primary Societies be held first; and the second order dated 6th December, 2021 was passed by a Bench at Bombay directing that the elections be held in terms of the Schedule, which was declared by the time the second order was passed.

On 21st January, 2022, an order was passed in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra exercising power under Section 59 granting extension to the Board of Directors/Non Government Administrators Board/Administrator existing as on 23rd January 2022, excluding the Board of Directors in respect of which the High Court or any other Court had issued orders for holding the elections and against whom actual inquiry has been started, till the election of the concerned Agriculture Produce Market Committee are held and the newly elected body takes the charge or for a period of three months.

The question that come up for the Top Court's consideration was whether having exhausted the time limit which is permissible and allowable under the second proviso to Section 14(3), whether power can still be exercised under Section 59 of the Act.

Referring to the expression used in the second proviso to Section 14(3), the bench noted that it was quite clear in stipulating that,

“where the general election of members of a Committee could not be held for reason beyond the control of the Committee before expiry of the term of office of its members as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, extend from time to time, the term of office of any such Committee, so however, that the period for which the term of office is so extended shall not exceed the period of one year in the aggregate.” (emphasis added)

In light of the said provision, court held that the power under Section 14(3) was special and dealt with the matter of extension of time within which the elections must be held, and the power under Section 59 of the Act was quite general.

"This special power has specified the maximum permissible limit for extension. The maximum permissible period of extension having been exhausted in the instant case, there could be no further extension by taking resort to Section 59 of the Act...", said the Court.

Accordingly, the SLP filed by Dari Vivid Karyakari Sahakari Santha Maryadit was dismissed.

Case Title: DARI VIVID KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.