Bombay High Court
Ramhari Ganpatrao Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 7 April, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 902 wp 8398-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 WRIT PETITION NO. 8398 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3601 OF 2021
RAMHARI GANPATRAO SHINDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar
I/c GP for Respondent nos.1 to 3: Mr. D.R. Kale
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 7th APRIL , 2021.
...
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned GP for the respondents.
2. The petitioner assailed the order dated 01/12/2020
appointing the Administrator so also the decision rejecting the
request of extension of the term.
3. The term of the petitioner managing committee expired.
Thereafter the Administrator is appointed. The request to
extend the term of the managing committee is also rejected.
4. The impugned order appointing Administrator and rejecting
the request for extension of term is bereft of any reasons.
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 19:25:12 :::
2 902 wp 8398-20.odt
5. We have under our judgment and order dated 1 st March,
2021 disposed of group of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.
5164 of 2020 with connected writ petitions, wherein the request
to extend the term of the managing committee of the respective
APMCs was negated without assigning reasons. In the said writ
petitions we have set aside the order. In the present case also
we do not fnd any reasons given while rejecting the request for
extension of the term. In the judgment dated 01/03/2021 in Writ
Petition No. 5164 of 2020 with connected writ petitions we had
observed as under :
"54. Having regard to the stock of citations relied
upon by both the sides and the position of law laid
down in those citations, legal proposition is very
much clear. No APMC can claim extension of term
as of right. The member of APMC has no right to
continue in an elected ofce. Right to continue in
an elected ofce is neither a constitutional nor a
common law right. It is a statutory right given by
the Act of 1963. The State Government has
discretionary powers to extend the term of APMC.
It is not obligatory on the part of the State to
extend the term of APMC after expiry of period of
fve years term. The factual scenario arising out of
respective petitions of APMCs has projected a
picture that the State has used its discretionary
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 19:25:12 :::
3 902 wp 8398-20.odt
powers in an arbitrary and capricious manner. As
discussed herein before, certain APMCs have been
given extension without assigning any reason and
straightway Administrators came to be appointed
on the said APMCs. This action of the State of
Maharashtra is nothing but pick and choose policy
as per its convenience. There is no rational behind
it.
55. The State Government has taken a decision to
postpone the elections of APMCs in the State of
Maharashtra due to extraordinary situation of
Covid-19 pandemic. The decision of the State
Government to postpone the elections of APMCs in
the State of Maharashtra cannot be faulted with in
the present scenario. The question is about
granting extension to the APMCs in the State. To
grant extension to the APMCs is a policy decision.
It would be a uniform decision by the State
Government on the subject as a policy matter. No
policy decision seems to have been taken by the
State Government having regard to the pros and
cons of the impugned decisions of the State
Government are nothing but colourable exercise of
the powers. The impugned decision taken by the
State for appointing Administrators on the
respective APMCs of the petitioners are not fulflling
the requirement as enumerated under section
14(3) of the Act of 1963. As such, the impugned
decisions are found defective in the eye of law.
::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 19:25:12 :::
4 902 wp 8398-20.odt
Those do not stand on the legal platform. We have
no manner of doubt to arrive at conclusion that
impugned decisions are outcome of colourable
exercise of powers and do not sustain in the eyes of
law. Those decisions need to be quashed and set
aside."
6. In light of above and for the reasons recorded in the
judgment and order dated 1st March, 2021 in Writ Petition
No.5164 of 2020 with connected writ petitions, we pass the
similar order. Hence, following order:
ORDER
I) The impugned decision of the State authority of appointing
Administrator in respect of the APMC, Kallam, District :
Osmanabad so also the decision rejecting the request of
extension of the term are set aside.
II) The State authority shall take decision afresh on the
proposal of the petitioner for extension of the Board of APMC,
Kallam taking into consideration the Covid-19 pandemic
situation and also the record complaints against the board of
directors.
III) The Board of Directors of APMC, Kallam shall not take
policy decisions, till the State authorities take decision on their
proposal afresh.
5 902 wp 8398-20.odt
IV) Rule is made absolute accordingly.
V) Writ petition stands disposed of.
VI) In view of disposal of writ petition, civil application also
stands disposed of. No costs.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
vsm/-
