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).