Case Note & Summary
Rule 108(2) must be strictly construed – Financial control within APMC is vested in specific office bearers to ensure accountability. Chairman and Vice-Chairman cannot refuse statutory duties – Avoidance of responsibility does not confer authority on others. No implied power to reassign Secretary’s charge – Prior sanction from competent authorities is mandatory.
Held: Resolution granting financial authority to the petitioner is illegal – Rule 108(2) limits such authority to Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary. Chairman’s unwillingness does not justify bypassing statutory provisions – No discretion was available to assign financial powers to another director. Transfer of Secretary’s charge without prior approval is invalid – APMC cannot unilaterally make such decisions without higher authority’s sanction. Both resolutions quashed – The Divisional Joint Registrar’s order upheld; enquiry under Section 40 of the APMC Act directed to continue.
Major Acts & Sections Discussed: Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of High Court. Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963 – Section 40 – Enquiry into Irregularities, Section 45 – Consequences of Illegal Actions. Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Rules, 1967 – Rule 92 – Functions of Chairman & Vice-Chairman, Rule 93 – Leave of Absence, Rule 108 – Financial Transactions & Banking Authority. Subjects:APMC Board Resolution – Financial Authority – Chairman Vice-Chairman Secretary – Unauthorized Banking Powers – Secretary’s Charge – Prior Sanction – Rule Interpretation – Doctrine of Necessity – Resolution Invalid.
Nature of Litigation:Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the order of Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, canceling the resolution of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Pathri, regarding financial authority and change in Secretary’s charge.
Petitioner’s Claim & Relief Sought: Petitioner, Director of APMC, Pathri, challenged the cancellation of resolutions granting him financial authority and transferring the charge of the APMC Secretary to another individual. Sought reinstatement of the resolutions and quashing of the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order. Reason for Filing: Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 challenged the resolutions on grounds that they violated Rule 108 of the Maharashtra APMC Rules, which restricts financial authority to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary. Allegation that charge transfer of Secretary lacked prior sanction from higher authorities. Prior Decisions: Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies held both resolutions invalid and ordered an enquiry under Section 40 of the Maharashtra APMC Act, 1963. Issues:a. Whether the APMC Board could legally authorize a director (petitioner) to operate the bank account despite the presence of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary?b. Whether the APMC Board had the authority to transfer the charge of the Secretary without prior approval from competent authorities?
Submissions/Arguments: Petitioner’s Arguments Doctrine of Necessity applied as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were unwilling or disqualified from financial transactions. Rule 108 is directory, not mandatory—APMC had discretion to delegate powers in exceptional circumstances. Vice-Chairman was absent without leave, creating a governance vacuum that justified resolution. Secretary voluntarily resigned; hence, the charge had to be reassigned. Respondents’ Arguments Rule 108(2) explicitly states financial transactions must be conducted only by Chairman, Vice-Chairman, or Secretary—no provision for delegation to another director. Chairman cannot refuse to perform duties, and his unwillingness does not justify bypassing statutory provisions. The Secretary’s charge cannot be transferred without prior sanction—resolutions were against Rule 43 and Rule 92(2).
Issue of Consideration: Eknath S/o Ramchandra Ghandge Versus The State of Maharashtra And Ors.
