1 wp8283.2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.8283/2017
1] Shankarrao Gajanan Choudhary,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist
Resident of at & post
Manchanpur Sawra,
Taluka Akot, District Akola
2] Mohan Janrao Jayale,
Aged about 63 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist
Resident of Jehangir Akola,
Tahsil Akot, District Akola
3] Ramvilas Ganeshlal Agrawal
Aged about 65 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist
Resident of Hiwarkhed Road,
Akot, Taluka, District Akola
4] Ramesh Pralhadrao Bondre,
Aged about 71 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist
Resident of Sirpur Road,
Taluka Akot, District Akola ... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400 032
2] The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Akola
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:45:35 :::
2 wp8283.2017.odt
3] Jaydeo Ramchandra Ghankhede,
Aged about major,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of at & post Takli Bujruk,
Akot, Taluka Akot,
District Akola ... RESPONDENTS
===================================
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for the petitioners
Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the respondent no. 3
===================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
th
DATED :- 8 JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the
District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies disqualifying the
petitioners under Section 45 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963
(hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1963") and Rule 41 (1) (i) and
(k) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred
as "the Rules of 1967").
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:45:35 :::
3 wp8283.2017.odt
3] The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the
petitioners were not given notice of any default under Section 45
of the Act of 1963. It is further submitted that Rule 41 of the Rules
of 1967 is deleted on 18/12/2017 and this is not noticed by the
District Deputy Registrar while passing the impugned order on
22/12/2017. I find that the grievance made by the petitioners that
effect of deletion of Rule 41 of the Rules of 1967 is not considered
by the District Deputy Registrar, is justified.
In view of the above , the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
1] The impugned order is set aside. 2] The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2- District Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration.
3] The petitioners and the respondent no. 3 shall appear before the respondent no. 2- District Deputy Registrar on 05/02/2018 at 11:00 a.m. and abide by further orders/instructions in the matter.
4] The respondent no. 2- District Deputy
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:45:35 :::
4 wp8283.2017.odt
Registrar shall dispose the proceedings according to law, till 05/03/2018.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Ansari ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:45:35 :::