Bombay High Court
M/S Kopulwar Traders (Commission ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 13 August, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 wp640.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 640/2018
(M/s. Kopulwar Traders vrs. STate of Maharashtra and others )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.K.Tambade, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.M.Ukey, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 13/08/2021
Heard Mr. Tambde, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1
and 4. None appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, though served.
2] The petition challenges the order dated 19.12.2017
whereby, under the powers conferred under Section 57 (2) & (3) of
Agriculture Produce Market (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963,
the Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Society, Yavatmal/Respondent
No.1, has directed recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,24,487/- from the
petitioner.
3] The respondent No. 3/agriculturist had lodged a
complaint on 29.5.2017, with the Tribunal to the effect that he had
sold cotton at the A.P.M.C., Zari/respondent no.2, through the
petitioner, who is an Adtiya/Commission Agent, and had not received
the payment. The details of the transactions for which Respondent
No.3 claimed payment, were as under;
2 wp640.18.odt
[a] on 6.11.2015 8.58 quintals and 7.48 quintals
[b] on 20.11.2015 8.25 quintals, 7.90 qunitals and 7.75 quintals
[c] on 21.11.2015 7.00 quintals and 8.60 qunitals.
-----------------------
Total 55.55 quintals.
It is material to note that the petitioner, apart from
acting as a Commission Agent (Adtiya), is also the purchaser of the
above cotton, as is reflected from para 1 of the impugned order. Even
if that may not be the case, then also the petitioner as an Adtiya is
obligated to get the payment of the goods sold through him and after
deducting his commission, make over the balance payment to the
agriculturist.
4] The response of the petitioner to the show-cause notice
by the Tribunal, was merely denial and the delay in making the
complaint. The finding of the Tribunal on an earlier occasion, in
regard to the complaint made by the respondent No. 3 for non
payment, which was found to be incorrect, was also relied upon.
5] A perusal of the impugned order indicates, that the
learned Tribunal has relied upon the Measurement slips, which
indicate the weight of the agricultural produce sold. In a transaction in
A.P.M.C, the measurement slip, forms the basic document, by which
any transaction can be evidenced. That being the position, I do not
find any substance in the argument of Mr. Tambde, learned counsel for
the petitioner, that there is no application of mind or there is absence
of reasons in passing the impugned order. The further contention that
on an earlier occasion, the complaint of the respondent no. 3, of non
receipt of the payment in respect of the transaction dated 2.12.2015
3 wp640.18.odt
was found to be incorrect and therefore, was rejected, is not of such a
significance, so as to non-suit the respondent No. 3, in the matter of
the enquiry into a complaint, which does not relate to the transactions
complained of. The further contention that the earlier complaint of the
year 2015 was enquired by the Assistant Registrar, Zari Jamni and the
impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal at Yavatmal, also is
not of much significance, inasmuch as the impugned order has been
passed under the provisions of Section 57 (2) and (3) of A.P.M.C. Act,
1963, and the Tribunal appointed for Yavatmal district has jurisdiction
over any complaint in respect of non-payment of dues, within the area
of the A.P.M.C., Zari Jamni also.
6] That being the position, I do not see any merit in the
petition. The same is rejected. The amount deposited in this Court be
paid over to Respondent No.3. No order as to costs.
7] Mr. Tambde, learned counsel for petitioner, makes a
request for stay of this order/judgment for a period of four weeks to
approach the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6] Considering that the amount is secured before this
Court, the effect and operation of this order/judgment is stayed for a
period of four weeks from today.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
