Bombay High Court
Agricultural Produce Market ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 12 July, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 902 wp 3304_16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3304 OF 2016
Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Newasa, District Ahmednagar.
Through its Chairman
Mr. Kadubai Baburao Kardile,
Age: 67 years, Occup. Social work,
R/o. Gidegaon, Tq. Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
Co-operation and Textile Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. M/s. Subhash Prakash Co.
Newasa Market Yard, Tq. Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar through its proprietor
Shri Devidas Sadashiv Salunke,
Age: 57 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Newasa, Tq. Newasa,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondents
----
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for the respondent-state.
Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S.P. Pawar, Advocate for
respondent no.3.
----
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 12-07-2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of the parties.
2 902 wp 3304_16.odt
2. The petitioner-original respondent in Revision
Application No. 15 of 2015 purportedly aggrieved by order dated
10-03-2016 passed by respondent no.2 directing to restore the
possession as had been subsisting prior to 29-02-2016 regarding
plot no.2 by order on application for interim relief in the revisional
proceedings initiated by present respondent no.3 against a notice
dated 19-01-2016, directing respondent no.3 to vacate the
concerned premises, is before this court.
3.
Learned counsel Mr. Sapkal for petitioner submits,
notice by Agricultural Produce Market Committee was issued on 19-
01-2016 to respondent no.3 to hand over possession and since no
action in furtherance of the notice had been taken by respondent
no.3, it has sealed the premises under a panchnama dated 29-02-
2016 taking over the possession.
4. He submits that it appears, around 25-02-2016 the
revisional proceedings had been supposedly initiated by respondent
no.3 and a notice of the same through e-mail had purportedly
been sent to the petitioner, however, the same had not been
accompanied either with the memorandum of revision application
or, for that matter, any of the annexures thereto in the revisional
proceedings.
3 902 wp 3304_16.odt
5. Pursuant to notice, the petitioner had been before
respondent no.2 and had requested for time to file its response to
the revisional proceedings. However, respondent no.2 insisted upon
for immediate filing of response to the revisional proceedings and
accordingly the same came to be filed on 04-03-2016 and the
impugned order has been passed on 10-03-2016, which has been
challenged in this writ petition. It has been submitted that this
court had directed the parties to maintain status quo which is
continuing hitherto.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
the terms of the agreement, upon expiry of the period of lease, it
was open for the petitioner to take back the possession which has
accordingly been taken as per powers available to it. The exercise
of power cannot be faulted with and more particularly for the
reasons as have been referred to by the revisional authority.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Sapkal further vehemently submits
that impugned order on interim application tantamounts to the
decision of revision itself. Having regard to the factual situation
obtaining on the date of the order impugned, he submits, revisional
authority has exceeded its power in directing to maintain status
quo ante. Respondent no.2- Director of Marketing, is not vested
with such power under any law at least at the interim stage.
4 902 wp 3304_16.odt
8. Countering aforesaid submissions, Shri Hon, learned
senior advocate, appearing for respondent no.3, contends that the
whole action against respondent no.3 is a result of malafides and
calculated move under a stratagem. It is submitted that much
before expiry of period of lease pursuant to the terms of the
agreement a request had been made to Agricultural Produce Market
Committee for extension of period of lease, however, the same had
not been responded to, nor even the subsequent communications in
respect of the same. It is submitted pursuant to the terms
respondent no.3 had option and right to continue for a further
period. An option which has been exercised by respondent no.3.
He further contends that Agricultural Produce Market Committee
has been digressing the attention of the authorities which would not
be germane. Respondent no.3 is being malafide targeted. He
submits that the purported sealing of the premises is a calculated
move to hinder and obfuscate the revisional proceedings. Action of
sealing and/or taking possession is highhanded and illegal action.
Despite notice having been served on Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, of the revisional proceedings issued, duly served and
having been received by petitioner the hasty action is taken ill-
intendedly and ill-motivatedly. The same is a very brazen action
intended to undo the revisional proceedings.
5 902 wp 3304_16.odt
9. No response has ever been given by Agricultural
Produce Market Committee to the requests being made by
respondent no.3 for renewal of lease, pursuant to the terms of
agreement. The petitioner had all along been abiding by the terms
of lease between the parties. There is no allegation in respect of
the same. In case there is no violation of any terms of the lease
the licensee will be entitled to have the lease renewed and it was
incumbent to renew the lease upon exercise of option.
10.
It is therefore being submitted that the observations as
have occurred in the order impugned are impeccable and after
taking the stock of the situation as is emerging from the facts as
they are. It is being submitted that there is no substance in the
contention of the other side that the impugned order tantamounts
to decision in revisional proceeding itself. Learned counsel urges
that no indulgence be given to the request on behalf of the
petitioner that the revisional proceedings be directed to be disposed
at an early date.
11. He submits, respondent no.3 is in possession of the
concerned premises since 1980 continuously till the same have
been purportedly sealed on 29-02-2016, which is forming principle
source of income to respondent no.3 and family members of
proprietor. The whole activity of respondent no.3 has come to a
6 902 wp 3304_16.odt
grinding halt under the highhanded and vindictive action. Learned
senior counsel submits that the circumstances indicate that the
balance of convenience is in favour of respondent no.3, as well as it
is respondent no.3 alone who would suffer a loss which is
irreparable. He submits that the the ingredients necessary for
interim relief are overbearingly in favour of respondent no.3.
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the
impugned order and submits that an equitable view has been taken
by respondent no.2 and in the circumstances, writ petition is liable
to be dismissed.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the
position emerges that, admittedly, respondent no.3 was in
possession of the concerned premises since 1980 continously
without interruption all through up to 29-02-2016 and it further
appears that there had been some correspondence before the
expiry of the period of lease for continuation / renewal of the lease
as well as further communications thereafter in this respect. For a
period of five years after expiry of period of lease, Agricultural
Produce Market Committee did not take any action. However, as
the time passed by, perhaps, it appears that intention of the
Agricultural Produce Market Committee underwent change.
7 902 wp 3304_16.odt
14. Thirty year initial lease period expired in 2009-2010, the
notice purportedly had been issued only in January, 2016.
Thereafter, also till the revisional proceedings had been initiated, no
action with regard to taking back possession from respondent no.3
as contended to have been pursuant to the terms of agreement had
ever been initiated. It was only after notice of revisonal
proceedings had been communicated to the petitioner, an action
appears to have been taken.
15.
It is very tenuous argument on behalf of the petitioner
that the notice was not accompanied by the memorandum of
revision and annexures thereto and it appears to be a runaway one.
In such a case the situation could have been salvaged by waiting till
03-03-2016 when the petitioner was called upon to respond to the
revisional proceedings.
16. The purported action of sealing the premises being
taken pursuant to the notice dated 19-01-2016, in the
circumstances, appears to be hasty, may be, with a view to
pre-empt interim order and its consequences in revisional
proceedings. Such a hasty action by an organisation like the
petitioner which is expected act as model litigant, would be difficult
to be approved of.
8 902 wp 3304_16.odt
17. The petitioner is before this court seeking relief under
its discretionary powers. Looking at the action which is taken
against the respondent no.3, particularly in the situation wherein
there does not to be appear such an express exigency for
Agricultural Produce Market Committee to take an action while
having the notice of the revisional proceedings, in the
circumstances, though, it is being contended that revisional
authority has no power to grant the relief as has been granted
under the impugned order, it is difficult to exercise discretion in
favour of the petitioner.
18. Having regard to the background as has been referred
to above, writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
19. At this stage, Mr. Sapkal, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks extension of interim relief for a period of five weeks
which had been hitherto operating under the interim order of this
court dated 22-03-2016. As such, interim relief to continue for a
further period of five weeks.
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH)
JUDGE
mub
