Bombay High Court
Ramesh Pralhadrao Chokhat vs The Director Of Marketing, Pune ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
mub 1 27 wp 2812.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2812 OF 2015
Ramesh S/o Pralhadrao Chokhat
Age: 34 yrs, Occ: Service,
R/o. Jawala Bazar,
Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of Marketing, Pune
Central Building, Pune.
2. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
3.
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Society, Hingoli.
4. The Assistant Registrar (Co-operative)
Aunda-nagnath, Dist. Hingoli.
5. Shri. Uttam Gangadhar Chauhan
Age: 52 years, Occu: Agril.
R/o. Tuljapurwadi,
Post. Ranjebuvache-Adgaon,
Tq. Vasmath, Dist. Hingoli.
6. The Agriculture Produce Market
Committee, Jawala bazar,
Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli,
Through its Administrator ... Respondents
----
Mr. A.R. Vyawahare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.P. Basarkar, Advocate for the respondent.
Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent no.5.
----
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 06-06-2016.
mub 2 27 wp 2812.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of the parties.
2. The petition has been purportedly aggrieved by the
order dated 23-02-2015, upon an application dated 23-02-2015
filed by the present petitioner annexed to the petition at page no.
25, before this court.
3.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties position
emerges that certain proceedings have been moved against present
petitioner in respect of actions taken by him during their regime
and as such he has been arrayed as party to said proceedings. An
objection has been taken by the present petitioner about authority
of respondent no.1, contending that having regard to section 43,
and having regard to circular dated 18-09-1981 with reference to
notification dated 05-09-1981, the powers have been delegated to
Divisional Joint Registrar and as such the Director of Marketing
before whom the proceedings have been lodged by respondent no.5
would not have power and / or jurisdiction to go ahead and the
same would not be maintainable. Respondent no.4 has overruled
the objections. As such petitioner is before this court against
impugned order dated 23/02/2015 passed by Director of Marketing,
Pune.
mub 3 27 wp 2812.15.odt
4. Having regard to the provisions of Section 43 it appears
that respondent no.1 has passed the order rejecting the objection
been taken. It would be worthwhile to refer to section 43 of
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Act, which reads as under.
Section 43: Powers of State Government or Director to call for
proceedings of Market Committee, etc. and to pass orders
thereon.
The State Government may at any time call for and examine the
proceedings of any Market Committee or of the Director, and the
Director may at any time call for and examine the proceedings of
any Market Committee or an officer empowered to exercise the
powers of the Market Committee or of the Director for the purpose
of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality
or propriety of any decision or order passed by the Market
Committee, Director or the officer, as the case may be, under this
Act. If in any case, it appears to the State Government or the
Director that any decision or order or proceeding so called for
should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government or
the Director may pass such order thereon as it or he may think it.]
5. Taking into account text of the provision, it does not
appear that the impugned order in the present writ petition suffers
any infirmity.
6. The writ petition as such is devoid of any substance and
the same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to
costs.
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH)
JUDGE
