Facts
The petitioner, a voter in a primary cooperative society and the respondent APMC, challenged a recruitment advertisement dated 16.03.2024 issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Idar
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioner alleged that the recruitment of 8 clerks and 4 auction clerks was non-transparent, lacked proper publicity, and was intended to appoint relatives of the Board of Directors and Secretary
Source reference: p. 2-3It was further contended that the APMC’s establishment expenditure exceeded the statutory limit of 40% of its income
Source reference: p. 2The respondent argued that the petitioner lacked standing and was acting at the behest of his brother who had a personal grievance regarding promotion
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the recruitment process initiated by APMC, Idar via the advertisement dated 16.03.2024 was legally sustainable under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing Act and Rules
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the petition survives for adjudication in light of subsequent administrative actions by the Director
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The court considered Articles 14, 19, and 226 of the Constitution of India in conjunction with the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963
Source reference: p. 1-2Rule 41(A) of the Act, which governs statutory compliance and transparency in the recruitment and management of staff within Market Committees, including expenditure limits on establishment
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The court evaluated the petitioner’s claim that the recruitment process was "shabby" and violated Rule 41(A) due to excessive expenditure and nepotism
Source reference: p. 3The Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) informed the court that the respondent no. 2 (Director) had already cancelled the recruitment process in question
Source reference: p. 4The court reasoned that since the underlying cause of action (the recruitment process) no longer existed, the grievances raised by the petitioner regarding the lack of transparency and statutory violations were rendered moot
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The court held that the petition no longer survived as the respondent-Director had cancelled the recruitment process
The Special Civil Application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs. All pending civil applications for direction were disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p. 5, para 8-9Original Court PDF
HEMANTBHAI NACHCHHABHAI PATELvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in