Bombay High Court
Suresh S/O. Kawaduji Yenodkar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 8 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
0812WP3000.16-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3000 OF 2016
PETITIONERS :- 1) Suresh S/o Kawaduji Yenodkar, Aged 59 yrs,
Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Jaitpur, Po.Barwa,
Tah. Lakhandur, Distt. Bhandara.
2) Ravindra S/o Kashinath Ruat, Aged 46 yrs,
Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Doke Sarandi, Tah.
Lakhandur, District - Bhandara.
ig 3) Manoj S/o Sukhdeo Meshram, Aged 42 yrs,
Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Kudegaon, Tah.
Lakhandur, District Bhandara.
4) Sadhu S/o Zibalji Pohankar, Aged 55 yrs,
Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Kahir/Gartola,
Po.Masal, Tah. Lakhandur, Distt. Bhandara.
5) Suvarna w/o Yadavrao Borkar, Aged 40 yrs,
Occ. Housewife, R/o Dharmapuri, Tah.
Lakhandur, District- Bhandara.
6) Shobhabai w/o Dayaram Rakhade, Aged 40
yrs, Occ. Housewife, R/o Doke Sarandi, Tah.
Lakhandur, District- Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through its Director
of Marketing Agricultural Federation, Pune.
2) The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Bhandara.
3) The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Lakhandur, District- Bhandara.
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 00:21:52 :::
0812WP3000.16-Judgment 2/6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.A.Gupte, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.A.S.Fulzele, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 08.12.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition
is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners, the Directors of the
Agriculture Produce Market Committee have challenged the order of the
respondent No.2, District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Bhandara dated 03/12/2015, under section 45(1) of the Maharashtra
Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act.
3. The petitioners were the Directors of the agriculture
produce market committee. On a complaint made by one Gajanan
Naktode, an enquiry was initiated in the affairs of the market
committee. The respondent No.3-Assistant Registrar conducted an
enquiry and submitted a report, dated 17/04/2013. In pursuance of the
report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and after
hearing the petitioners, the impugned order of supersession of the
market committee dated 03/12/2015 was passed. The petitioners have
0812WP3000.16-Judgment 3/6
impugned the order of the District Deputy Registrar dated 03/12/2015,
in the instant petition.
4. Shri Gupte, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as the
market committee has been superseded without effective consultation
with the State Marketing Board. It is stated that though the District
Deputy Registrar had referred the matter to the State Marketing Board,
the State Marketing Board has not opined in the matter of supersession
of the market committee. It is stated that it is apparent from the
documents annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the
District Deputy Registrar that the State Marketing Board has not given
an opinion in the matter of supersession of the market committee. It is
stated that the State Marketing Board has only asked the District Deputy
Registrar to take appropriate action in accordance with law and if any
court case is pending, to act as per the directions of the court and to
ensure that there is no contempt of the orders of the court. It is stated
that since an effective consultation with the State Marketing Board is
contemplated by the proviso to section 45 (1) of the Act, it was
necessary for the State Government to effectively consult with the State
Marketing Board.
5. Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents, has supported the order of the District
Deputy Registrar. It is stated that the proposal in regard to the
0812WP3000.16-Judgment 4/6
supersession of the market committee was sent to the State Marketing
Board and the State Marketing Board had called for the report from the
Deputy Manager of the Board at Nagpur. It is stated that after the said
report was secured, the report of the Project Director of the Board at
Bhandara was sought and again a detailed enquiry report was secured
from the Deputy General Manager of the Board at Nagpur. It is stated
that on the reports of the Deputy General Manager and the Project
Director of Nagpur and Bhandara respectively, the State Marketing
board directed the District Deputy Registrar vide communication dated
27/11/2015 to take appropriate action. It is stated that even otherwise,
the term of the agriculture produce market committee has expired on
08/12/2015 and the petitioners cannot seek the restoration of the
managing committee of the agriculture produce market committee,
even if the orders of supersession of the market committee are set aside.
It is stated that the cause for filing the writ petition has been rendered
infructuous, as the term of the market committee has expired on
08/12/2015.
6. Section 45 (1) provides that no market committee could
be superseded without previous consultation with the State Marketing
Board. It is not in dispute that the District Deputy Registrar had
referred the matter to the State Marketing Board. It is the case of the
District Deputy Registrar that after the matter was referred to the State
Marketing Board by the District Deputy Registrar, the report from the
Deputy Manager of the Board at Nagpur and the Project Director of the
0812WP3000.16-Judgment 5/6
Board at Bhandara was sought. It appears that though the reports were
secured, the State Marketing Board did not apply its mind to the matter
pertaining to the supersession of the market committee and asked the
District Deputy Registrar to take appropriate action vide
communication dated 27/11/2015. It was further conveyed by the said
communication, by the State Marketing Board to the District Deputy
Registrar that the orders passed in the pending matters should be
considered and the District Deputy Registrar should ensure that no
orders of the Courts should be flouted. On a reading of the
communication served by the State Marketing Board on the District
Deputy Registrar, along with the resolution passed by the State
Marketing Board, it appears that the State Marketing board has not
given any opinion in the matter of supersession of the market
committee though before supersession of the market committee, an
effective consultation with the State Marketing board is obligatory. The
State Marketing board has not taken any decision whatsoever, though it
is stated that the State Marketing Board had sought the opinion of the
Deputy Manager of the Board at Nagpur and the Project Director of the
Board at Bhandara. The State Marketing Board ought to have informed
the District Deputy Registrar on the basis of the reports and the material
on record whether the market committee could be superseded or not.
What is conveyed by the State Marketing Board to the District Deputy
Registrar is that the District Deputy Registrar should take appropriate
action in the matter, by consciously considering the orders passed by
the courts and ensuring that there is no contempt of any orders. This is
0812WP3000.16-Judgment 6/6
not an opinion that is expected from the State Marketing Board under
the proviso to section 45 (1) of the Act. It is rightly submitted on behalf
of the petitioners that an order of supersession of the market committee
could not have been passed without effectively consulting the State
Marketing Board. Since the opinion of the State Marketing Board is not
an opinion at all, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Though
the petitioners would not be entitled to continue as the directors of the
agriculture produce market committee after the expiry of the term,
when the elections to the market committee are scheduled, the order of
supersession of the market committee under section 45(1) of the Act is
liable to be set aside or else penal consequences under sub-section (2A)
of section 45 of the Act would follow and the directors of the market
committee would not be eligible for being re-elected, re-appointed, re-
nominated, co-opted, etc. for a period of six years.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The order of the District Deputy Registrar, dated 03/12/2015
is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
