Bombay High Court
Shri. Satish S/O. Ramrao Tayade ... vs The State Of Maha. The. Secretary ... on 8 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp1726.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1726 OF 2016
1) Shri Satish s/o Ramrao Tayade,
Aged 52 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o Digras, Tahsil - Digras,
District - Yavatmal.
2) Shri Vitthal s/o Fakira Rathod,
Aged 50 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Arrambhi, Tahsil -
Digras, District Yavatmal.
3) Shri Ashok s/o Uttamrao Deshmukh,
Aged 53 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Aarambhi, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
4) Shri Rajesh s/o Prabhakar Sawane,
Aged 45 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Harsool, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
5) Shri Ramesh s/o Kisan Rathod,
Aged 48 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Mokh-1, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
6) Shri Arvind s/o Pralhad Gadewar,
Aged 45 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
R/o At Mandawa, Tahsil - Digras,
District - Yavatmal.
7) Shri Sitaram s/o Haribhau Rathod,
Aged 60 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Kandali, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:37:24 :::
2 wp1726.16
8) Shri Ashok s/o Balchand Chauhan,
Aged 42 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Sakhara, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
9) Shri Shriram s/o Rodbaji Shinde,
Aged 60 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At Chirkuta & Post Aarambhi, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
10) Smt. Tarakabai w/o Deepak Patil,
Aged 50 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Aarambhi, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
11) Smt. Shantabai w/o Hari Chauhan,
Aged 50 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Vithala, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
12) Shri Ashok s/o Pralhad Thakare,
Aged 53 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Tuptakali, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
13) Shri Charansingh s/o Jaisingh Rathod,
Aged 54 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Kandali, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
14) Shri Vishwanath s/o Pundlik Gore,
Aged 52 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Harsool, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
15) Shri Dayaram s/o Purshuram Chauhan,
Aged 58 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Harsool, Tahsil -
Digras, District - Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:37:24 :::
3 wp1726.16
16) Shri Onkar s/o Nandkishor Khadloya,
Aged 56 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At Chickpatra & Post - Tuptakali,
Tahsil - Digras, District - Yavatmal.
17) Shri Kishor s/o Rameshwar Saboo,
Aged 52 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Digras, Tahsil - Digras,
District - Yavatmal.
18) Shri Noor Gulab Khan,
Aged 53 years, Occ.- Agriculturist,
R/o At & Post Digras, Tahsil - Digras,
District - Yavatmal. .... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Co-operation and Marketing,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-3.
2) The Director of Marketing,
State of Maharashtra, Pune.
3) The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Yavatmal,
Tahsil Ghatanji & District Yavatmal.
4) Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Digras, through its Secretary,
Tahsil - Digras, District - Yavatmal.
5) Deepak Gauraba Anandwar,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o Digras, District - Yavatmal.
6) Devendra Pundlikrao Raut,
Aged 50 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
Both 5 & 6 residents of Digras,
District Yavatmal. .... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:37:24 :::
4 wp1726.16
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the petitioners,
Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 3,
None for the respondent No.4,
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the respondent Nos.5 & 6.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 8
JULY, 2016.
th
Civil Application No.920/2016.
For the reasons stated in the application, the applicants
are permitted to participate in the proceedings as respondent Nos.5
and 6.
The civil application is allowed.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri
K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3
and Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the
District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 45 of
5 wp1726.16
the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1963")
appointing an administrator till the elections of the Agricultural
Produce Market Committee are held and the members of newly elected
body assume office.
4.
The petitioners are the elected members of Board of
Directors of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, having been
elected on 16-09-2011. According to the petitioners, their term is till
15-09-2016. The District Deputy Registrar appointed Assistant
Registrar to conduct an enquiry and submit report in the matter of
allotment of open space/land owned by the Agricultural Produce
Market Committee, on lease and in the matter of grant of advance to
the Directors. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies
submitted his report on 10-04-2015. After receiving the report, the
District Deputy Registrar issued show cause notice under Section 45 of
the Act of 1963 to the Directors. The petitioners submitted their reply.
After considering the reply, the District Deputy Registrar has issued the
impugned order.
5. This Court, while directing issuance of notice to the
6 wp1726.16
respondents, by the order dated 14-3-2016, granted an interim order
and stayed the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned
order with condition that the petitioners shall not take any policy
decisions involving financial implications. It is undisputed that in view
of the order dated 14-03-2016, the petitioners continue in the office
and the administrator has not taken over the charge.
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has argued
several points. One of the submission is that the proviso below sub-
section (1) of Section 45 of the Act of 1963 requires that before
superseding any market committee, the State Marketing Board referred
in Section 44 of the Act of 1963 has to be consulted. The learned
Advocate for the petitioners has pointed out the communication issued
by the Executive Director of the Maharashtra State Agricultural
Produce Board on 22-02-2016 and has submitted that this is the only
document on record on the basis of which the respondents are
contending that there has been effective consultation with the Board as
required by the proviso below sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Act
of 1963. The above mentioned communication dated 22-02-2016 does
not show that the Maharashtra State Agricultural Produce Board has
been consulted in the matter by supplying all the relevant material
7 wp1726.16
including the documents. The above mentioned communication dated
22-02-2016 does not show that the Maharashtra State Agricultural
Produce Board has considered any material and has expressed its
opinion on the points on which the petitioners are sought to be ousted
from their elected office and an administrator is sought to be
appointed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has not been
able to show that there has been proper and effective consultation with
the State Marketing Board before the impugned order is issued.
In the above facts, it has to be held that the impugned
order is not sustainable as the mandate of proviso below sub-section
(1) of Section 45 of the Act of 1963 has not been complied with.
The impugned order is quashed.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
adgokar
8 wp1726.16
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : P.M. Adgokar. Uploaded on : 16-07-2016.
P.A.
