Bombay High Court
Baliram Dadaji Nasar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 30 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 5226/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5226/2015
Baliram Dadaji Nasar,
aged about 40,
R/o Jamni, Director Agriculture Produce
Market Committee, Hinganghat,
Distt. Wardha. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Cooperation Marketing,
Mantralaya, Bombay - 32.
2.
Director of Agricultural Marketing,
Office of the Director Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies,
Nagpur division, Nagpur,
Dhanwatey Chamber (Annex),
Nagpur-12.
4. District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Wardha.
5. Assistant Registrar Cooperative
Society Hinganghat,
District Wardha, Hinganghat.
6. Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Hinganghat,
Through its Secretary, Hinganghat,
Distt. Wardha.
7. Ananta Dadaji Satone,
Electrician,
Agricultural Market Committee,
Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha. RESPONDENTS
Shri Anjan De, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.S. Tembhare, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 5.
Shri V.D. Bastian, counsel for the respondent no.6.
Mrs. U.A. Patil, counsel for the respondent no.7.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 30 TH
SEPTEMBER, 2016.
WP 5226/15 2 Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Wardha under Section 40
of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Market Committee (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1963 asking the Market Committee to follow certain
directions. Some other communications are also impugned in the instant
petition.
3. Shri De, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that the petitioner presently restricts the challenge in this writ petition
to the order of the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Wardha, dated 07.06.2015 as the said order is liable to be
quashed as an opportunity of hearing was not granted to the
petitioner and the other members of the Market Committee, before
the directions were issued by the the District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Wardha. It is submitted that in view of the
provisions of Rule 117(4) of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce
Market Committee (Regulation) Rules, 1967, it is necessary for a
WP 5226/15 3 Judgment
person authorized to conduct the enquiry and submit the report to the
Director and it would be necessary for the Director to pass an order on
the report so submitted only after giving an opportunity to the
concerned persons including the members of the Market Committee. It is
stated that the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Wardha
has not heard the petitioner, who is the member of the Market
Committee, before passing the impugned order. It is stated that
though the petitioner challenges the order on several other grounds,
the same may not be canvassed as the clear provisions of Rule
117(4) have not been followed before passing the impugned order,
dated 07.06.2015.
4. Shri Tembhare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5, states that the
powers of the Director under Rule 117 of the Rules have been
delegated to the the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies as
per the Government Resolution, dated 21.06.1977 and, therefore, the
District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Wardha was empowered
to pass the impugned order. It is, however, fairly admitted that the
petitioners were not heard by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Wardha before the impugned order, dated 07.06.2015 was
passed.
WP 5226/15 4 Judgment
5. In view of the admission on the part of the District Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Wardha in regard to the absence of a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order
dated 07.06.2015 is liable to be set aside. The provisions of Rule 117(4)
of the Rules clearly stipulate that a Director is empowered to pass an
order on the report under Section 40 of the Act only after giving a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons including the
members of the Market Committee. Since the members of the Market
Committee were admittedly not heard by the District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Wardha, to whom the powers of the Director under
Rule 117(4) have been delegated by the Government Resolution, dated
21.06.1977, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order, dated 07.06.2015, is hereby quashed and
set aside. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Wardha
is free to pass an appropriate order under Section 40 of the Act of 1963
read with Rule 117(4) of the Rules of 1967 after hearing the petitioner
and the other members of the Market Committee, within four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WP 5226/15 5 Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on :04.10.2016.
