2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.10.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.11117/2008 on the ground that interpretation given to the exercise of authority under Section 33 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 ("Ordinance") is contrary to the law.

2. The basic facts of the case are that the Respondent was appointed as Administrator, Market Committee, Gujrat on 19.11.2005 until the constitution of a new Market Committee. He continued to work as Administrator until the issuance of notification dated 23.04.2008, which was impugned in the writ petition. The grievance of the Respondent was that he was functioning as per law as Administrator and there was no justifiable reason for the Government of Punjab to remove him from the office by exercising power under Section 33 of the Ordinance.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent was not available on the last date of hearing and not even today. This is an old case, therefore, we are inclined to proceed with the matter on the basis of available record.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Respondent was appointed on temporary basis on account of political consideration. The Government of Punjab exercised its power under Section 33 of the Ordinance and removed all Administrators from their post and replaced them with officers of the Agriculture Department in order to ensure the smooth working of the market committee. In the instant case, District Officer, Agriculture (Extension) Gujrat was nominated as Administrator. Learned counsel argued that power under Section 33 of the Ordinance can be exercised in emergency situations where the purpose of the Ordinance was not carried out. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the record and the facts wherein it is evident that the Respondent along with other Administrators were appointed purely for political consideration and it was on approval of a summary from the Government that their removal was required. Learned counsel argued that all the Administrators at the time were removed in anticipation of reconstitution of the market committee with the help of officers appointed from Agriculture Department. Meaning thereby that the Government removed all political appointees.

5. Vide impugned judgment the learned Single Judge on examining Section 33 of the Ordinance concluded that power could only be exercised in an emergency situation and in the instant case, nothing has been placed on record to justify the exercise of power under Section 33 of the Ordinance. The impugned judgment further held that there is no reason or allegation or illegality having been committed by the Respondent which justifies his removal. Reliance was placed upon the case titled "Mian Tajammal Hussain and 7 others v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture Department" (1990 MLD 570).

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment. The basic contention of the Appellants, Government of Punjab is that it is duly authorized to exercise power under Section 33 of the Ordinance if it feels that the purpose of the Ordinance is not carried out. In this case, the justification brought forward is that Administrators were appointed for political consideration including the Respondent and until the constitution of a new market committee in Punjab, the function of the Administrators in the market committee was to be performed by the officers of Agriculture Department. This was stated to be in the public interest to ensure smooth functioning of the market committee. The record shows that at the time when the Respondent was appointed, the funds of the market committee were frozen and could only be utilized or released, with the approval of the Government. The notification itself provided that the appointment was an interim arrangement till the constitution of the market committee. On 23.04.2008 a notification was issued wherein the function of the Administrators was to be performed by the officers of the Agriculture Department such that all private persons were removed from the market committee in the public interest. Based on the record, we are of the opinion that the writ petition was not maintainable as the Respondent did not have any vested right on the basis of which he could claim his entitlement to hold office of Administrator. The notification dated 19.11.2005 itself stated that the appointment was in interim measure until the constitution of a market committee. The Government of Punjab in pursuance of policy and in the public interest removed all Administrators, who were all private persons and brought the office of the Administrators under the control of Agriculture Department for smooth functioning by constituting a new market committee.

7. Under the circumstances, this Intra Court Appeal is accepted and the judgment impugned dated 16.10.2009 of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. ZC/G-1/L Appeal allowed.