Bombay High Court
Sangeeta Sunil Shinde And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 March, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5164 OF 2020
1. Radhakisan S/o Deorao Pathade,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri. and Chairman of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Bhagchand S/o Rustum Thombre,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Ram S/o Bhausaheb Shelke,
Age 48 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Ganesh S/o Sandu Dahihande,
Age 53 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
5. Harishankar Damaya,
Age 61 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
6. Prashant S/o Rameshchandra Soliya,
Age 47 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
7. Sangeeta Namdeo Madage,
Age 46 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
8. Damodar H. Navpute,
Age 66 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
9. Raghunath Kale,
Age 62 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
2 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
Dist. Aurangabad.
10. Narayan S/o Panditrao Mate,
Age 74 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
11. Babasaheb S/o Punjaram Mugdal,
Age 40 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
12. Devidas Balaji Kirtishahi,
Age 57 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
13. Sau. Alka Bhausaheb Dahihande,
Age 58 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
14. Shivaji S/o Uttamrao Wagh,
Age 41 years, Occu. Agri. and Director of
the Super APMC, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Co-operation, Marketing and Textile
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad.
4. Super Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Aurangabad,
Through its Secretary. ...Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
3 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4628 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5164 OF 2020
Trimbak Laxman Harane,
Age 50 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Pokhari Tq. and Dist.
Aurangabad ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Co-operation, Marketing and Textile
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
and Others. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4630 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5164 OF 2020
Sanjay Tukaram Autade
Age 18 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Harsul Tq. and Dist.
Aurangabad and others ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Co-operation, Marketing and Textile
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
and Others. ...Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
4 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4811 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5164 OF 2020
Harish S/o. Dattopant Pawar,
Age 68 years, Occu. Business,
Ex Director of the super APMC,
Aurangabad, Aurangabad District
R/o. Plot No. 6, Surana Nagar,
Seven Hill, Aurangabad 431 003 ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF :
Radhakisan S/o Deorao Pathade and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Co-operation, Marketing and Textile
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
and Others. ...Respondents
Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Mr M.S. Karad, Advocate for respondent No. 4
Ms R.R. Barhate, Advocate for Applicant in C.A. No. 4811/2020
Mr V.D. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant in C.A. No. 4628/2020
Mr Amit D. Ghute, Advocate for Applicant in C.A. No. 4630/2020
WRIT PETITION NO. 5961 OF 2020
1. Mahananda Kishanrao Bhosale,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o : At Post Isad, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani.
2. Namdeo Ramkishan Niras,
Age : 53 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o : At Post Pedgaon, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani.
3. Laxmikant Bhaskar Gundale,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Agriculture,
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
5 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
R/o : Near Savali Puja Mangal Karyala,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani.
4. Rambhau Gunaji Kambale,
Age : 62 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o : At Post Benpimpla, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani.
5. Savitribai Rajesh Phad,
Age : 48 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o : At Post Khadgaon, Tq. Gangakhed,
Dist. Parbhani. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation, Textile and Marketing Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies,
Aurangabad
4. The District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Parbhani,
District Parbhani
5. The Assistant Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani.
6. The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed,
District Parbhani, Through its Secretary
7. Shri. S.N. Tayde,
Administrator, The Assistant Registrar,
Co operative Society, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, District: Parbhani. ...Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
6 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
Mr M.V. Nagargoje, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5
Mr M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 and 7
WRIT PETITION NO. 6593 OF 2020
1. Sow. Sangeeta w/o Sunil Shinde
Age 43 years, Occu. Agriculture
And household,
R/o. Dattanagar, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar
2. Nitin s/o Suryabhan Bhagde
Age 42 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Nimgaon Khairi,
Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar
3. Deepak s/o Shivram Patare
Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Karegaon, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar
4. Shri. Muktaji Vitthal Phatangare,
Age: 56; Occupation: Agriculture;
R/o: AT and Post Mandve;
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
5. Shri. Nanasaheb Punjaji Pawar,
Age: 66; Occupation: Agriculture;
R/o: AT and Post Taklibhan,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
6. Shri. Vishwanath Nanasaheb Muthe,
Age: 52; Occupation: Agriculture;
R/o: AT and Post Muthevadgaon,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
7. Shri. Sonyabapu Govind Shinde,
Age: 57; Occupation: Agriculture;
R/o: AT and Post Naur,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
8. Smt. Vidyatai Bhausaheb Dabhade,
Age: 64; Occupation: Agriculture;
R/o: AT and Post Taklibhan,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
7 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
9. Smt. Nandatai Bhausaheb Shelar,
Age: 61; Occupation: Agriculture;
R/o: AT and Post Jafarabad,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
10. Shri. Kailas Bhagvatrao Borde,
Age: 55; Occupation: Agriculture;
R/o: AT and Post Matulthan,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
11. Shri. Nitin Dattatray Asane,
Age: 56; Occupation: Agriculture;
R/o: AT and Post Malvadgaon,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
12. Shri. Radhakrushna Babanrao Aher,
Age: 53; Occupation: Agriculture;
R/o: AT and Post Brahmangaon Vetal,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
13. Shri. Bhausaheb Karbhari Thete,
Age: 46; Occupation: Business;
R/o: AT and Post Shrirampur,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
14. Shri. Jitendra Madanlal Gadiya,
Age: 41; Occupation: Business;
R/o: AT and Post Shrirampur,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar.
15. Shri. Deepak Namdeo Hivrale,
Age: 40; Occupation: Hamal;
R/o: AT and Post Shrirampur,
Tal: Shrirampur; District Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary for
Co-operation, Marketing And Handloom
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
8 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
2. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar
District Ahmednagar
4. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Shrirampur
Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6864 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6593 OF 2020
Vishnupant S/o. Eknath Khandagale,
Age 56 years, Occupation Agriculture;
R/o. : Taklibhan; Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary for
Co-operation, Marketing And Handloom
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr V.D. Hon Senior Advocate i/by
Mr A.V. Hon, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent/State
Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for Applicant in C.A. No. 6864/2020
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6623 OF 2020
1. Prashant S/o Ramdas Patil,
Age: 40 years; Occ. Agri. and Chairman
of the APMC, Latur,
R/o: Shelgaon, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur.
2. Sanjay S/o Vinayakrao Patil,
Age: 47 years; Occ. Agri.,
R/o: Chakur, Tal. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
9 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
3. Ankush S/o Bhaguram Motherao,
Age Major, Occ. Agri.,
R/o Chakur, Tal. Chakur,
Dist. Latur.
4. Pandurang S/o Vitthalrao Bhosale,
Age 65 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o Khurdali, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur.
5. Ashok S/o Gangaram Chinte,
Age 55 years, Occ. Agri and
Deputy Chairman of APMC Latur,
R/o Gharani, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur.
6. Sunil S/o Ramrao Manale,
Age 52 years, Occu.Agri.,
R/o Sugaon, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur.
7. Uddhav S/o Annarao Birajdar,
Age 50 years, Occu.Agri.,
R/o Nalegaon, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur.
8. Madhav S/o Narayan Lavate,
Age Major, Occu.Agri.,
R/o Anjansonda, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur.
9. Dayanand S/o Damodar Surwase,
Age 40 years, Occu.Agri.,
R/o Zari, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur.
10. Gundu S/o Sangram Janwalkar,
Age Major, Occu.Agri.,
R/o Jadhala, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur.
11. Rohidas S/o Ambadas Waghmare,
Age Major, Occu.Agri.,
R/o Janwal, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur. ...Petitioners
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
10 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Co-operation, Marketing and Textile
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Latur.
4. Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Latur, Tal. & District Latur,
Through its Secretary ...Respondents
Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Mr M.S. Karad, Advocate for Respondent No. 4
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6626 OF 2020
Satish s/o Parshuram Shinde,
Age 66 years, Occu. Agriculture and
Chairman of Agriculture Produce Market
Committee, Pachora, R/o: Pachora,
Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Co-operation & Marketing Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune,
Dist. Pune.
3. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon.
4. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon.
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
11 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
5. Administrator, APMC, Pachora &
Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6488 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6626 OF 2020
Sanjay s/o Chagenlal Shisodiya ,
Age 48 years, Occu : Agriculture;
R/o. : Shivaji Maharaj Chowk,
Pachora, Tq. Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon ...Applicant
Versus
Satish s/o Parshuram Shinde,
Age : 66 years, Occu: Agriculture and Chairman
of Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Pachora, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7029 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6626 OF 2020
Vishanu s/o Mahadu Sonar,
Age 59 years, Occ.: Agriculture/Business
R/o. : Gandhi Chauk, Taluka: Pachora,
District Jalgaon ...Applicant
Versus
Satish s/o Parshuram Shinde,
Age : 66 years, Occu: Business
Chairman Of APMC, Pachora
R/o: Pachora, Taluka : Yawal,
Dist. Jalgaon and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr V.D. Salunke, Advocate and
Mr M.V. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
Mr Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for
applicant in C.A. No. 6488/2020
Mr Nirmal N. Dayama, Advocate for Applicant
in C.A. No. 7029/2020
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
12 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6646 OF 2020
The Jamner Agriculture Produce Market
Committee, Jamner, District Jalgaon.
Through It's Chairman
Shri Sanjay Devrao Deshmukh,
Age 48 years, Occupation - Agri,
R/o Village Pahur,
Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Hon'ble Minister,
Agriculture, Horticulture & Marketing
Department, State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through It's Secretary,
Agriculture, Horticulture & Marketing
Department, State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Director of Marketing,
The Directorate of Marketing,
State of Maharashtra,
3rd Floor New Administrative Building,
Pune at Pune - 411 001.
4. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-op. Societies Nashik Division,
Nashik at Nashik.
5. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies Jalgaon
at Jalgaon.
6. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies Jamner at Jamner.
7. The Secretary,
Agriculture Produce Market Committee
Jamner at Jamner.
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
13 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
8. The Administrator,
A P M C Jamner at Jamner,
Shri D.V. Patil,
Co-operative Officer (Grade - I) ...Respondents
Mr D.B. Thoke, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7
Mr U.S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 8
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6649 OF 2020
Shri Prafulla S/o Hiralal Pawar,
Age 40 years, Occ.: Agriculture,
R/o At Post Maspur, Tq. Amalner,
District Jalgaon. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Co-operation, Textile and Marketing
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Executive Director,
Maharashtra State Agriculture Textile
Board, Gultekadi, Market Yard, Pune.
4. The Divisional Joint registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division,
Nashik.
5. The District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies Jalgaon
District Jalgaon.
6. The District Collector and District
Election Officer, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
7. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Amalner, Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon,
Through its Secretary/Administrator ...Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
14 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
Mr A.B. Girase, Advocate and Mr Y.B. Bolkar,
Advocate for Petitioner
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6
Respondent No. 7 served.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6821 OF 2020
1. Kautikrao s/o Namdeorao Jagtap,
Age 52 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Hisoda, Tq. Bhokardan,
District Jalna
2. Ganesh s/o Narayan Khale,
Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Khalewadi, Tq. Bhokardan,
District Jalna
3. Vishwas s/o Bhikanrao Sapkal,
Age 55 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Jalgaon Sapkal, Tq. Bhokardan,
District Jalna
4. Sau. Sheelabai w/o Bhagwan Wagh,
Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Warud, Tq. Bhokardan,
District Jalna
5. Pralhad s/o Ganpat Shinde
Age 59 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Fakepur, Tq. Bhokardan,
District Jalna
6. Balaji s/o Rajabhau Auti,
Age 52 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Borgaon Jahangir, Tq. Bhokardan,
District Jalna
7. Suresh s/o Pandharinath Talekar,
Age 46 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Nanaj, Tq. Bhokardan,
District Jalna ...Petitioners
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
15 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Co-operation, Textile and Marketing
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Divisional Joint registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad
4. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Jalna
District Jalna
5. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Bhokardan,
Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6846 OF 2020
1. Bhausaheb s/o Pandurang Jadhav,
Age 48 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Kolhapur, Post. Mahora,
Tq. Jafrabad, District Jalna
2. Sau. Latabai w/o Vijay More,
Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Papal, Post. Tembhapuri,
Ta. Jafrabad, District Jalna
3. Raju s/o Himmatrao Chavan
Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Kumbharzari,
Tq. Jafrabad, District Jalna
4. Sudhir s/o Hanumantrao Patil,
Age 48 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Khasegaon, Tq. Jafrabad,
District Jalna
5. Kailas s/o Pandurang More
Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Kumbhari, Tq. Jafrabad,
District Jalna
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
16 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
6. Deepak s/o Baburao Wakde,
Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Malegaongalli, Tq. Jafrabad,
District Jalna
7. Rajiv s/o Devidas Khot,
Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Kumbhari, Tq. Jafrabad,
District Jalna ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Co-operation, Textile and Marketing
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Divisional Joint registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad
4. The District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Jalna
District Jalna
5. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Bhokardan,
Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna ...Respondents
Mr V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by
Mr A.V. Hon, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6913 OF 2020
Madhukar s/o Balasaheb Kachgude,
Age 55 years, Occ.: Agriculture and President
of Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. ...Petitioner
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
17 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Cooperation & Marketing Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
3. Assistant Registrar,
cooperative Societies, Ambejogai,
And Administrator APMC, Ambejogai
Appointed by order dated 02.07.2019
4. Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed,
Through its Secretary
5. Vishnu Patangale,
Assistant Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Amabejogai,
Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed
And Administrator appointed on
APMC, Ambejogai on 01.10.2020. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8114 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6913 OF 2020
Madhukar s/o Balasaheb Kachgude,
Age 55 years, Occ.: Agriculture and President
of Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Cooperation & Marketing Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032 and ors. ...Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2021 22:45:42 :::
18 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
Mr V.D. Salunke, Advocate Advocate for Petitioner
Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 served.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVATION : 21.12.2020
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.03.2021
JUDGMENT : ( PER SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
2. These petitions involve similar set of facts and common
question of law as such to avoid rigmarole are being disposed of by
common judgment.
3. It would be convenient to have a glance on the facts of each
petition.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5164/2020 (SUPER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, AURANGABAD)
4 The election of the Super Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Aurangabad for the term of 2015-2020 was held and present
petitioners were elected as members of the Managing Committee. In the
first meeting held on 05.08.2015, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were
elected. The petitioners are the elected Directors of the Super Agricultural
Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee").
19 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
The term of the said Committee came to be expired on 04.08.2020.
Because of Covid-19 pandemic from March, 2020, the Committee could
not proceed to conduct the elections before 04.08.2020.
5 The Managing Committee passed a resolution by majority on
08.06.2020 to seek an extension from the State Government in view of
the provisions of Section 14 (3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce
Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act"). The resolution was forwarded to the District Deputy
Registrar, Aurangabad with proposal for a extension. The District Deputy
Registrar, Aurangabad has forwarded the proposal to the Director of
Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune with recommendation to grant one
year extension to the present Committee as per Section 14 (3) of the Act.
6. The respondent No. 1/State issued impugned letter dated
23.07.2020 to respondent No. 2/Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State,
Pune informing that there is no need to grant extension to the present
Committee. The said impugned letter is challenged by the petitioners by
invoking writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. During pendency of the petition, respondent No. 3/the District
Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad passed an order
dated 05.08.2020 and appointed himself as an Administrator over the
Committee. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 3 has no
authority to appoint himself as an Administrator, and therefore, the
impugned order is bad in law and needs to be quashed and set aside.
20 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
8. It is further contended by the petitioners that the term of all
other Market Committees came to be extended by the State but only
Super Agricultural Produce Market Committee is made an exception. It
speaks the policy of the State to pick and choose under the political
influence. The petitioners are before us in the above background.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5961/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, GANGAKHED, DIST. PARBHANI).
9. The election of Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani was held for the term from 2014-2015 to
2019-2020. The petitioners were elected as members of the said
Committee. The term of five years of the said Committee came to an end
on 05.05.2020. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the elections of Co-operative
Societies were postponed for a period of six months. The petitioners have
forwarded the proposal for extension of term to the present Committee.
The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gangakhed
recommended the proposal to the District Deputy Registrar, Parbhani and
in turn, the District Deputy Registrar, Parbhani forwarded that proposal to
the Secretary, Co-operation, Textile and Marketing Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
10. The proposal of the Committee was pending before the
Government. During pendency of the proposal, the District Deputy
Registrar, Parbhani passed an impugned order dated 27.08.2020,
thereby, appointed Administrator on the Gangakhed Agricultural Produce
Market Committee. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
21 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
Gangakhed came to be appointed as an Administrator to look after the
day to day affairs and administrative works of the Gangakhed Agricultural
Produce Market Committee. It is contended by the petitioners that the
District Deputy Registrar, Parbhani has given complete go-bye to the
order passed by the Government dated 10.07.2020. It is contended by the
petitioners that action of respondent-authorities is bad in law. The
respondent-authorities have appointed the Administrator on Agricultural
Produce Market Committee, Gangakhed without giving any kind of notice
and without giving an opportunity of hearing. As such, the impugned order
of appointing Administrator on the Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Gangakhed is bad in law and needs to be quashed and set
aside. It is further prayed by the petitioners to issue writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondent-authorities to act
upon as per the Government order dated 10.07.2020 issued by the
Deputy Secretary, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6593/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, SHRIRAMPUR, DIST. AHMEDNAGR).
11. The elections of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Shrirampur were held in the year 2015 for the term of the year 2015-2020.
The term of the Committee came to an end on 05.09.2020. The
Government of Maharashtra by taking into consideration Covid-19
pandemic, spreading in the State constrained to postpone the elections of
the Committee for a period of six months. The Chairman of the APMC,
Shrirampur submitted a proposal to the State Government for extension
of the term. No decision was taken by the State Government. The
22 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
petitioners had filed writ petition No. 6073/2020 seeking directions to the
Government to take decision on the proposal. This Court directed the
State Government to take decision on the proposal submitted by the
petitioners within a period of two weeks with the observation that since
the decision is pending with the Government, it is expected that
Government will not take precipitating steps regarding appointment of
Administrator till the decision is pending.
12. The petitioners rushed to the Court by invoking writ jurisdiction
and sought protection in case any adverse order is passed by the State
authorities.
13. By way of subsequent development when the petition was
pending, the State Government has turned down the proposal of the
APMC, Shrirampur and appointed Administrator on the APMC,
Shrirampur. According to the petitioners, the impugned order dated
29.09.2020 appointing Administrator on the APMC, Shrirampur is bad in
law. The State has appointed Administrator by way of colourable
exercise of jurisdiction. The Administrator has not taken the charge of
APMC, Shrirampur and by way of interim order, this Court has protected
the petitioners by directing to the Administrator not to take the charge of
the Committee if not already taken. According to the petitioners, the
impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside since it is contrary to
the provisions of Section 14 (3) of the Act, 1963.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6623/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, CHAKUR, DIST. LATUR).
23 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
14. The term of the APMC, Chakur came to be expired on
06.09.2020. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the State Government was
constrained to postpone the elections of APMC in the State. The
Committee could not proceed to finalize the voters list as well as further
necessary requirements to hold elections prior to 04.08.2020. The
Managing Committee of APMC, Chakur by majority of votes passed
resolution on 01.09.2020 to seek an extension from the State
Government in view of the provisions of the Act, 1963. The resolution
was forwarded to the District Deputy Registrar, Latur by the APMC,
Chakur along with the proposal. The said proposal was pending for
consideration with the State Government. Respondent No. 3 has issued
impugned order without waiting for the decision of the State Government
on the proposal submitted by the APMC, Chakur and appointed an
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chakur on 16.09.2020 as an
Administrator on the APMC, Chakur. The action of respondent No. 3 is
bad in law. The State Government has given extension to various APMCs
in the State but exception is made for APMC, Chakur. The petitioners
have challenged the impugned order of appointing Administrator by
invoking writ jurisdiction.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6626/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, PACHORA, DIST. JALGAON).
15. The term of APMC, Pachora came to an end on 18.09.2020.
Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the State Government was constrained to
postpone the elections of the APMC in the State. The APMC, Pachora
24 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
passed a resolution in the meeting on 07.09.2020 to submit a proposal to
the State Government for extension of the term as per Section 14 (3) of
the Act, 1963. The proposal was sent to the Assistant Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Pachora forwarded the proposal to the District
Deputy Registrar, Jalgaon. The District Deputy Registrar, Jalgaon
forwarded the said proposal to the State/Respondent No. 1 with
recommendation and same was pending with the State Government. No
decision was taken by the Government. According to the petitioner, the
State Government has granted extension to several APMCs in the State
of Maharashtra on the ground that elections are postponed due to Covid-
19 pandemic and no fault lies with the Committees. The petitioner was
about to file the writ petition for seeking directions to the State
Government to allow the Committee to continue as In charge in view of
the directions given by the Principal Seat at Bombay in writ petition stamp
No. 92335/2020. However, all of a sudden, the District Deputy Registrar,
Jalgaon passed an order and dissolved Managing Committee, Pachora
and appointed an Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pachora as
an Administrator on the APMC, Pachora by an order dated 21.09.2020.
According to the petitioner, the impugned order is politically motivated
and bad in law. The State Government has granted extension to the term
of several APMCs in the State. The State cannot take different view
violating Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner in the capacity
as a Chairman of the APMC, Pachora, has challenged the impugned
order of appointment of Administrator on APMC, Pachora by invoking writ
25 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
jurisdiction.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6646/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, JAMNER, DIST. JALGAON).
16. The elections of the APMC, Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon were held in
the year 2015. The term of five years of the Committee came to an end
on 01.09.2020. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the State Government has
postponed the elections of APMCs in the State of Maharashtra. The State
has also given extension to the various APMCs in the State. The APMC,
Jamner has passed a resolution on 04.09.2020 to submit proposal to the
Government for extension of term of the Committee. Accordingly, the
proposal for extension of term was submitted to respondent No. 4.
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have considered the proposal. The District
Deputy Registrar with his recommendation submitted the proposal to the
Director of Marketing, Pune and in turn, the proposal was submitted with
recommendation to the Secretary, Co-operation, Marketing and Textile
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The same is pending with the State
Government. No decision is yet taken by the State Government.
17. The State Government has appointed Mr D.V. Patil, Co-
operative Officer (Grade - I) as Administrator on the APMC, Jamner vide
its order dated 21.09.2020. According to the petitioner, the extension was
granted to the APMCs which are ruled either by Nationalist Congress
Party, Indian National Congress, or Shiv Sena. The impugned order of
appointing an Administrator on APMC, Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon is bad in
law. The petitioner has challenged the same by way of this petition.
26 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
WRIT PETITION NO. 6649/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, AMALNER, DIST. JALGAON).
18. The elections of the APMC, Amalner were held in the year
2015. The term of the Committee came to an end on 14.09.2020. Due to
outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the State Government has postponed
the elections of the co-operative societies and market committees by
order dated 10.07.2020. The Committee has passed resolution
unanimously for extension of the term for further period of six months
from 14.09.2020. The proposal was submitted to respondent Nos. 1 to 5
for extension of the term of the existing Body. Respondent No. 5 has
recommended respondent No. 3 to submit necessary proposal to the
State Government for extension of the term. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune vide letter dated 14.09.2020 submitted the
proposal before the State Government with the recommendation to grant
extension to the existing Body of APMC Amalner for further period of six
months. On 21.09.2020, respondent No. 5 all of a sudden, appointed the
Administrator on the APMC, Amalner. According to the petitioner, the
action of the State Government is discriminatory. The State has extended
the term of the Market Committees which belong to the Ruling Party and
not extended the term of the APMC belonging to the Opposite Party. The
petitioner has challenged the impugned order of appointment of
Administrator by approaching this Court.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6913/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, AMBEJOGAI, DIST. BEED).
19. The elections of the APMC, Ambejogai were held in the year
27 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
2015. Since the formation of the APMC, Ambejogai, the petitioner and
Board of the Directors have taken decisions so as to improve the working
of the APMC. However, in the meantime, they left NCP Party and joined
BJP Party. The Directors belonging to NCP and local leaders of Ruling
Party thereby pressurized the District Deputy Registrar to dislodge the
Body. Because of the political pressure, the District Deputy Registrar has
issued notice under section 45 of the APMC Act, 1963. All the Directors
submitted in detail reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner in
apprehension of adverse order, which may be passed by the District
Deputy Registrar filed writ petition No. 13996/2018 and sought protection
of 15 days. This Court pleased to grant protection for 15 days vide order
dated 19.12.2018. The District Deputy Registrar did not follow the
procedure for consultation with Apex Body i.e. the State Marketing Board.
However, passed the order dated 02.07.2019 under political pressure of
the Ruling Party. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated
02.07.2019 under Section 45 appointing Administrator by filing writ
petition No. 6629/2019. After appearing the parties this Court pleased to
protect the petitioner by continuing protection granted in writ petition
No. 13996/2018. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Government has
postponed the elections of the APMC by exercising powers under Section
14 (3-A) of the Act. The petitioner continued to occupy the chair. The
development work of the APMC was going on like issuing tender notice. It
is contended that because of the pressure of sitting MLC from Ruling
Party, stay order was passed by the Hon'ble Minister. Against that stay
order, the petitioner has preferred writ petition No. 6355/2020 wherein
28 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
notices were issued.
20. It is contended that due to political pressure, the District Deputy
Registrar passed impugned order dated 01.10.2020 under section 15-A of
the Act and dissolved the Managing Committee and appointed
respondent No. 5 as Administrator. According to the petitioner, dissolving
the Managing Committee under Section 45 and appointing Administrator
under section 15(A)(1) is arbitrary and illegal. The State Government has
made discrimination and protected the APMC, who are in the hands of
Ruling Party and dissolved APMCs which are in the hands of opposite
party. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondent-authority
by appointing Administrator is violative and against the provisions of the
Act, 1963. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies has not taken
charge of the Committee in view of protection granted by this Court in writ
petition No. 8629/2019. The petitioner has prayed to quash the impugned
order.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6821/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, BHOKARDAN, DIST. JALNA).
21. The elections of the APMC, Bhokardan were conducted in the
year 2015. The term of the Managing Committee came to an end on
13.09.2020. Before expiry of the term of the Committee, the Board has
passed resolution to conduct fresh elections for a term of five years and
forwarded the proposal to the State Government. The State Government
by taking into consideration Covid-19 pandemic, prevailing in the State
constrained to postpone the elections of Co-operative Societies, Market
Committees, etc. for a period of six months. The State Government
29 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
inspite of receiving proposal, has not taken any decision in the matter and
that is why Committee constrained to file writ petition No. 6134/2020 and
sought necessary directions regarding extension of term of the Market
Committee. The said writ petition came to be disposed of in view of the
statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The State
Government has refused to extend the term of the present Committee by
impugned order and decided to appoint Administrator on the APMC,
Bhokardan. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the
Government dated 29.09.2020, the petitioners have approached this
Court and challenged it by contending that it is bad in law.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6846/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE, JAFRABAD, DIST. JALNA).
22. The elections of APMC, Jafrabad were held in the year 2015.
The term of the APMC, Jafrabad came to an end on 02.09.2020. Prior to
the expiry of the term of APMC, Jafrabad, the Board has passed
resolution with a request to conduct fresh elections for a term of five years
and forwarded the proposal to the State Government. The State
Government constrained to postpone the elections of Co-operative
Societies, Market Committees, etc. for a period of six months due to
Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing
writ petition No. 6135/2020 and sought directions to the Government for
extension of term of the Market Committee. The said writ petition came to
be disposed of on the statement made by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader that proposal of the petitioners would be decided
within a period of four weeks. The State Government vide impugned order
30 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
dated 29.09.2020 has rejected the proposal to extend the term of APMC,
Jafrabad and decided to appoint Administrator on the APMC. Feeling
aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners have approached this
Court.
STAND OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT
23. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Aurangabad has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of State/Authorities. It is
the stand of the State Government that as per Section 14 (3A) of the Act,
the term of the Committee is prescribed for a period of five years as per
statute. The State Government has right to postpone the elections of the
APMCs due to scarcity, drought, flood, fire or any other natural calamity
or rainy season or any election programme of the State legislative or the
Parliament or a local authority, coinciding with the election programme of
any APMC or such other special reason. The said provision contemplates
that the State Government has discretionary powers to postpone the
election of the APMC. The petitioners are misconceiving and
misinterpreting the orders of the State Government dated 10.07.2020. As
per the said Government order dated 10.07.2020, the Government has
postponed elections of APMCs for a period of six months due to Covid-19
situation. The order dated 10.07.2020 is very specific thereby granting
time for holding elections to the Market Committee and not extending the
term or granting extension to the existing Board of Directors of Market
Committee. The Government has rightly rejected the proposals for
extension of their term submitted by the respective APMCs of the
31 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
petitioners.
24. The Government has not granted extension of time to any of
the existing Managing Committees. The extension is granted only for
holding election of the Market Committees. It is further stand of the State
Government that granting extension to the Market Committee is discretion
of the State Government. The petitioners cannot claim as of right the
extension of term for a further period of six months or so on. The
provisions of Section 15A of the Act are very much clear to take care of
such situation.
25. It is further stand of the State Government that right to continue
an elected office is neither a constitutional nor a common law right but it is
a statutory right. Second proviso to Section 14(3) of the Act gives
discretion to the State Government to extend term of APMC where
general elections of the Committee could not be held for reasons beyond
control of Committee before expiry of term of office of its members. The
petitioners cannot claim as of right that the State Government should
extend the term under section 14 (3) of the Act, does not cast an
obligation on the State Government to extend the term of the APMC after
a period of five years. Thus, the State Government has justified its
decisions of not granting extension to the respective APMCs and
appointing Administrators.
26. It is further stand of the State Government that the petitioners
have an alternate efficacious remedy to challenge the order passed by
respondent No. 3 regarding appointment of the Administrator on the
32 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
APMCs in view of section 52B of the Act.
27. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies has been
delegated the powers by the Director of Marketing in respect of
appointment of Administrator over the APMCs, vide Ordinance dated
29.11.2014 in exercise of powers under Section 15A of the Act. The
respondent has appointed Administrator over the Market Committees.
The petitioners have alternate remedy to challenge the order of
appointment of Administrators and writ petition is not maintainable in the
eyes of law.
28. In case of APMC Ambejogai, the complaints of farmers were
received by the State Government wherein allegations are made against
the Managing Committee/petitioners regarding huge amount of
misappropriation during their service tenure. The Hon'ble Minister for Co-
operation has directed to the Director of Marketing to make enquiry and
submit report. Respondent No. 2 has passed an order regarding enquiry
under section 40 (a) and (b) of the Act to make an enquiry and submit
report. In that background, it is the stand of the State Government that
APMC, Ambejogai cannot seek extension of their tenure when there are
serious allegations of misappropriation of huge amount of the Market
Committee. It is not the right of the Board of Directors to seek extension
to their tenure. The State Government has taken conscious decision not
to grant extension to the term of the APMC Ambejogai in the background
of serious allegations of misappropriation.
33 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
29. We have heard Mr Hon, learned Senior Counsel,
Mr V.D. Salunke, Mr S.S. Thombre, Mr M.V. Nagargoje, Mr D.B. Thoke,
Mr A.B. Girase, learned counsels for the respective petitioners.
We have also heard Mr S.G. Karlekar, the learned Assistant
Government pleader, Mr M.S. Karad, Mr R.R. Barhate, Mr Amit D. Ghute,
Mr S.T. Shelke, Mr M.P. Kale, Mr Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Mr Nirmal N.
Dayama and Mr U.S. Patil, learned counsels for the respective applicants/
intervenors.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR
THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS/APMCs AND LEARNED
ADVOCATES APPEARING FOR RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS/APMCs.
30. It is submitted that APMCs have passed resolution for grant of
extension of term of the Committee by passing necessary resolutions.
The resolutions were forwarded through competent authority to the State
Government. In some cases, the proposals for appointment of
Administrators were pending for decision when Administrators came to be
appointed. In some cases, the State Government has refused to grant
extension to the Committees and appointed Administrators. In two cases,
viz APMC, Bhokardan and APMC, Jafrabad, Administrators are yet not
appointed.
31. It is main attack of learned counsel appearing for the
respective APMCs that the Government has granted extension to some
APMCs in the State which belong to the Ruling Party and refused to grant
extension to those APMCs which belong to opposite party. The decision
of appointing the Administrators on respective APMCs is colourable
34 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
exercise of powers. The decision of appointing Administrators on the
APMCs is under political pressures. The State Government has not taken
any policy decision in view of the provisions of Section 14 (3) of the Act.
The decisions of appointing Administrators on APMCs of respective
petitioners are misuse of powers. No reasons are assigned by the State
Government while appointing Administrators on APMCs of the petitioners.
There were no allegations of mismanagement or misappropriation by the
respective APMCs of the petitioners. As such, there was no reason for the
State Government to appoint Administrators on the said APMCs.
32. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, it is not possible for the State
Government to conduct the elections of APMCs, and as such, the State
Government ought to have granted extension to the APMCs of the
petitioners to run the APMCs properly. It is vehemently argued that the
State Government is adopting the pick and choose policy in granting
extension to certain APMCs in the State. The State Government has
completely overlooked the import of Section 14 (3) and should have
granted extension to the Committee by taking into consideration Covid-19
pandemic. The State Government ought to have considered Section 14
(3) where the general elections of the members of the Committee could
not be held for reasons beyond the control of the Committee before expiry
of the term of office of its members. The State Government ought to have
given extension to the term of the office of Members of the APMCs, which
shall not exceed period of one year in the aggregate. The State
Government is giving different treatment to the APMCs which are run by
the opposite parties and thereby causing injustice by appointing
35 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
Administrators. The decisions taken by the State Government for
appointment of Administrators on the respective APMCs of the petitioners
is bad in law. It is liable to be quashed and set aside.
33. To buttress the arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioners have placed reliance on the the following citations :-
(i) Udhav Shalikram Geete Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors reported
in 2014 (6) Bom.C.R. 812 (Bombay High Court) (Nagpur Bench).
(ii) Shrikrushana Haribhau Ghuikar and others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and others in Writ Petition No.
1384/2016 dated 21.03.2016 (Bombay High Court) (Nagpur Bench).
(iii) Babasaheb s/o Apparao Akat and others Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 360.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
34. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader,
Section 14 of the Act, 1963, gives discretionary powers to the State
Government. Proviso to Section 14 (3) and Section 14(3A) of the said Act
gives powers to the State authorities under what circumstances term of
the Managing Committee or the Board of Directors can be extended. If
the State Government found that in facts and circumstances, it is not
necessary to grant extension to the Committee of APMC in the interest of
the affairs of the APMC, then the State may refuse to grant extension.
Section 15A of the Act of 1963 also provides that once the term of Board
of Directors came to an end, the powers are vested with State authorities
to appoint Administrators on the APMC. The State Government by
exercising the powers vested with it under section 15A (1) (a) of the Act,
has taken decision for appointing Administrators on the respective
36 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
APMCs. It is submitted that the petitioners - APMC cannot seek extension
of term as of right in appropriate cases. The State has given extension to
the certain APMCs and in certain cases, refused to grant extension to the
APMCs in the State of Maharashtra by exercising its discretionary powers
vested under the provisions of the Act of 1963.
35. It is submitted that in the case of APMC, Ambejogai, there
were serious allegations of misappropriation by the Board of Directors.
The Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation was pleased to issue directions to
the Director of Marketing to make enquiry and submit the report.
Accordingly, the enquiry was conducted and report was submitted. The
petitioners of APMC, Ambejogai cannot seek extension of their tenure in
view of the serious allegations of misappropriation of huge amount of the
Market Committee. The State Government has appointed Administrator
on APMC by considering serious allegations of misappropriation.
36. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader,
APMC, Khultabad has submitted the proposal to the authority for
amalgamation of APMC, Khultabad with APMC, Aurangabad. In Writ
Petition No. 9335/2019, the directions are sought to the respondent-
authorities to amalgamate APMC, Khultabad with APMC, Aurangabad by
taking necessary decisions on the said proposal and the petition is
pending before the High Court. On the said proposal of APMC,
Khultabad, the authority has submitted a detailed report to the Managing
Director of Maharashtra State Marketing Federation, Pune on 18.03.2020.
It would be in the interest of both APMCs viz APMC, Khultabad and
37 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
APMC, Aurangabad to amalgamate APMC, Khultabad in APMC,
Aurangabad. The authority has taken an appropriate decision which is
legal and valid. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that
the State Government has used discretionary powers in granting
extension to the APMC Committees as well refusing to grant extension
having regard to the factual scenario of each Committee. No case is
made out by the petitioners APMC Committees to interfere with the
decision of the State Government. The alternate remedy is also available
to the APMC to challenge the order of appointment of Administrator
before the competent authority and writ petition is not maintainable.
37. Mr Karlekar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has
relied upon following citations in support of his argument :-
(i) Udhav Shalikram Geete Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors reported
in 2014 (6) Bom.C.R. 812 (Bombay High Court) (Nagpur Bench).
(ii) Agricultural Produce Market committee, Arvi and another Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1988 Mh.L.J. 228.
38. Before going into the arena of dispute, it is obvious to consider
relevant provisions of the Act of 1963. Section 14 (3) and (3A) and
Section 15A. (1) (a) and (b) of the Act are as under :-
14. Election and term of office of members.
(1)......................
(2)......................
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the members of
a Market Committee (not being a Committee constituted for the
first time) shall hold office for a period of (five years), and the
members of a Committee constituted for the first time shall
hold office for a period of two years:
38 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
[Provided that, the Market Committee constituted for the first
time, may be replaced shall hold office for the remainder of the
period:]
[ [Provided further that], where the general election of
members of a Committee could not be held for reasons beyond
the control of the Committee before expire of the term of office
of its members as aforesaid, the State Government may, by
order in the Official Gazette, extend from time to time, the term
of office of any such Committee, so however, that the period
for which the term of office is so extended shall not exceed the
period of one year in the aggregate.]
[(3A) Where due to scarcity, draught, flood, fire or any other
natural calamity or rainy season or any election programme of
the State legislature or the Parliament or a local authority,
coinciding with the election programme of any Market
Committee or such other special reason, in the opinion of the
State Government, it is not in the public interest to hold
elections to any Market Committee, the State Government
may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any
rules, or bye-law made thereunder, or any other law for the
time being in force, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, by
general or special order, postpone the election of any Market
Committee for a period not exceeding six months at a time
which period may further be extended, so, however, that the
total period shall not exceed one year in the aggregate.]
[15A. Provision for appointment of Administrator after
normal or extended term of office of members expires.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(3) of section 15 or any other provisions of this Act, where the
term of office of two years, five years, or as the case may be,
the extended term of office, if any, under the proviso to sub-
39 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
section (3) of section 14 [------------] of the members of any
Market Committee, has expired, the Director or any officer not
below the rank of the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, authorised by him shall, by order in writing, direct
that -
(a) all members of the Committee shall, as from the date
specified in the order, cease to hold and vacate their offices as
members or otherwise; and
(b) [the Administrator or the Board of Administrators
appointed by the Director or such authorised officer shall
manage the affairs of the Committee], during the period from
the date specified in the order upto the day on which the first
meeting of the reconstituted Committee after the election is
held, where there is a quorum (hereinafter in this section
referred to as "the said period"). Such election shall be held
within a period of [Six months] from the date the [Administrator
or the Board of Administrators] assumes office:
[Provided that, this period of [Six months] may be extended,
from time to time by the State Government, in exceptional
circumstances, to a period not exceeding [ one year] in the
aggregate, by notification in the Official Gazette, for reasons,
which shall be stated in the notification.
FACTUAL SCENARIO SHOWING THE NAME OF APMC, DATE OF
PROPOSAL AND DATE OF APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR.
SR. NAME OF THE APMC DATE OF DATE OF Term
NO. PROPOSAL APPOINTM ended on
FOR ENT OF
EXTENSIO ADMINISTR
N OF TERM ATOR
1 APMC Aurangabad 08.06.2020 05.08.2020 04.08.2020
2 APMC Gangakhed, Dist. 23.03.2020 27.08.2020 05.05.2020
Parbhani
3 APMC Shrirampur, Dist. 10.08.2020 29.09.2020 05.09.2020
Ahmednagar
40 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
4 APMC Chakur, Dist. 03.09.2020 16.09.2020 06.09.2020
Latur
5 APMC, Pachora, Dist. 10.09.2020 21.09.2020 18.09.2020
Jalgaon
6 APMC Jamner, Dist. 04.09.2020 21.09.2020 01.09.2020
Jalgaon
7 APMC Amalner, Dist. 09.09.2020 21.09.2020 14.09.2020
Jalgaon
8 APMC Bhokardan, Dist. - Not 13.09.2020
Jalna appointed
9 APMC Jafrabad, Dist. 09.03.2020 Not 02.09.2020
Jalna appointed
10 APMC Ambejogai, Dist. Approached 02.07.2019 29.09.2020
Beed Court and
01.10.2020
39. The factual scenario referred above gives clear picture that
the State has appointed Administrator on APMC Aurangabad, APMC,
Gangakhed, APMC Shrirampur, APMC Chakur, APMC Pachora, APMC
Jamner, APMC Amalner, APMC Ambejogai. Even though term of APMC
Bhokardan and APMC Jafrabad are over, the Government has not yet
appointed Administrator. Thus, out of 10 APMCs, the State Government
has appointed Administrator on 8 APMCs. Section 14 (3) of second
proviso of the Act of 1963 provides where the general election of
members of a Committee could not be held for reasons beyond the
control of the Committee before expiry of the term of office of its
members, the State Government may extend its term from time to time
but the period of the term so extended shall not exceed the period of one
year in the aggregate. The State is also empowered to postpone the
elections of APMC due to scarcity, drought, flood, fire or any other natural
calamity for the reasons to be recorded in writing by general or special
order, postpone the election of any Market Committee for a period not
41 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
exceeding six months at a time but the same period may be extended
upto one year in the aggregate.
40. On studying the above said provisions of section 14 (3) and
section 14 (3A) of the Act of 1963, it is crystal clear that the Government
has discretionary powers to postpone elections of the APMCs in the State
but period shall not exceed one year in the aggregate. The State is
required to record the reasons for postponing the elections of APMCs.
There cannot be debate about discretionary powers of the State to
postpone elections. The question is about the manner in which the said
provisions are exercised by the State Government puts serious question
mark.
41. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the State has granted extension to the following APMCs, but the
petitioners APMCs are treated with step-motherly treatment.
Name of the APMCs
Sr.
No.
1 APMC, Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana
2 APMC, Pathri, Dist. Parbhani
3 APMC, Phaltan, Dist. Satara
4 APMC, Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
5 APMC, Gondia
6 APMC Yawal
7 APMC Bhusawal
8 APMC Parola
42. Section 15A of the Act of 1963 throws light on the provisions
for appointment of Administrator after normal or extended term of the
42 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
office of the members is expired. Again said powers of the State
Government are not disputed by the petitioners APMCs. The manner in
which the State has appointed Administrators on the APMCs of the
petitioners is seriously under cloud. It is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that certain APMCs are granted extension of
the term in a routine way but petitioners APMCs are made exception. The
State has refused to grant extension to the petitioners APMCs without
assigning any cogent reasons. The pick and choose policy seems to have
been adopted by the State Government while granting extension to
certain APMCs in the State. No reasons recorded while granting
extension to those APMCs. Equally no reasons recorded while not
granting extension to the petitioner - APMCs. There is reason to take
doubt about such exercise of discretionary powers by the State in view of
above state of factual matrix.
43. To grant extension to the term of APMCs under section 14(3)
of the Act of 1963 is certainly discretion of the State Government. The
discretion that vests with the Government is not an unregulated
discretion, but discretion needs to be exercised as per the applicable
norms, rational behind it coupled with circumstances appearing on record
while granting extension or refusing the same. The State Government is
not expected to use its discretionary powers under section 14 (3) of the
Act of 1963 arbitrarily, capriciously and without recording cogent reasons.
The decision of granting or refusing extension to the APMCs must be
impartial, fair and supported by reasons. The State is required to take
policy decision in this regard by considering the proposals given by the
43 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
respective Board of the APMCs by applying mind. If Board of APMC is
functioning well and protecting the interests of the farmers needs to be
considered for grant of extension of the term in view of the extraordinary
situation of Covid-19 pandemic. Of course, if Board of APMC is found to
be indulged in corrupt practices, malpractices and not protecting interest
of the farmers, certainly, the State can refuse the extension by recording
such reasons as contemplated under section 14 (3) of the Act of 1963.
44. We have studied the impugned orders/decisions whereby
State has appointed Administrators through the District Deputy Registrar.
The impugned decisions of appointing Administrators on the petitioners
APMCs are seriously under cloud. No plausible explanation is
forthcoming from the side of the State. On the certain APMCs viz APMC
Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana, APMC Pathri, Dist. Parbhani APMC Phaltan,
Dist. Satara, APMC Raver, Dist. Jalgaon, APMC Gondia, APMC Raver,
APMC Yawal, APMC Bhusawal and APMC Parola are given red carpet
treatment by granting extension and some APMCs are treated with step-
motherly treatment by refusing to grant extension even though APMCs
are not found indulged in malpractices. It is a question of policy decision
and certainly topmost authority ought to have considered all the angles.
Unfortunately, no such serious thought seems to have been given by the
State authorities while exercising powers under section 14 (3) of the Act
of 1963. It appears that it is a case of colourable exercise of the powers
by the State Government to maintain political balance and favour certain
APMCs.
44 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
45. We have also called the original file from the Department of
Co-operation and Marketing, Mantralaya, Mumbai regarding APMC
Aurangabad. On perusing the file, it appears that Note sheet was put up
before the higher authority to consider the proposal of the APMC
Aurangabad with relevant provisions of the Act of 1963. However, in one
line proposal for extension of term of APMC came to be turned down by
stating that there is no need to grant extension. It is not a compliance of
section 14 (3) of the Act of 1963. When a particular provision provides
that before granting extension or refusing the same, the State shall record
reasons certainly, decision must be supported by recording reasons. As
such, the impugned decision of refusing to grant of extension to the
APMC is found defective in view of section 14 (3) of the Act of 1963.
46. Same is the case of remaining 7 APMCs. No reasons are
assigned by the State while refusing to grant extension to them. It is
nowhere stated in the impugned orders that respective Board of APMCs
are indulged in corrupt practices, malpractices, or there is
misappropriation or APMC is not protecting interest of the farmers and
interest of the APMC. Had it been such a case, then the decision taken by
the State Government could have been appreciated, but such is not the
position as we have witnessed.
47. So far as the APMC, Ambejogai is concerned, again decision
of appointing Administrator appears to be under serious cloud. The
APMC, Ambejogai has rushed to this Court much earlier in the year 2018
apprehending that State may appoint Administrator and this Court was
45 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
pleased to grant protection when there was no Covid-19 pandemic.
Subsequently, the complaints seems to have received by the State
Government about affairs of the APMC Aurangabad and on those alleged
complaints, enquiry seems to have been ordered by the Hon'ble Minister
for Co-operation. This act of State Government appears to be after
thought with a view to take control of APMC, Ambejogai by appointing
Administrator.
48. So far as the remaining APMCs are concerned, there are no
such complaints of corruption, misappropriation in the said APMCs on
record even then the State has refused to grant extension without
recording sufficient reasons. Those impugned decisions are violative of
section 14 (3) of the Act of 1963.
49. In the case of Babasaheb s/o Apparao Akat and others Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the Division Bench of this
Court has held that if election of APMC could not be held because of
Assembly Election, the appointment of Administrator straightway is not
justified in absence of any allegation of mal-administration or mis-
feasance committed by members of the Committee. The Division Bench
observed that the approach of the appropriate authority in issuing the
orders of appointment of Administrator cannot be sustained in view of
section 14 (3) and 15-A of the Act of 1963.
50. In the case of Diliprao M. Mokashi and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 677, it is held by
the Division Bench of this Court that the State Government in order to
46 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
extend the term of office of APMC must record its satisfaction in view of
section 14 (3), second proviso of Act, 1963 that general election of
members of the Committee could not be held by it before expiry of term
for reasons beyond control of the Committee.
51. In case of Bhagwan Sampatrao Ghodmare and Anr. Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2017 (4) Mh.L.J. 394, it is
held by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur that power of State
Government under section 14(3A) is overriding in nature as it operates
notwithstanding anything contained in Act of 1963. While postponing the
election of the Committee, grounds must be found to be sufficient by the
State to postpone election in public interest. The State Government is
required to demonstrate grounds while issuing the order of postponement
of election of APMCs.
52. In the case of Agricultural Produce Market committee, Arvi
and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1988
Mh.L.J. 228, it is held by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur that
section 15A of the Act of 1963 is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution
of India. The provision is mandatory. The hearing is not necessary.
53. In case of Udhav Shalikram Geete Vs. State of Maharashtra
& ors reported in 2014 (6) Bom.C.R. 812 (Bombay High Court)
(Nagpur Bench), it is held by the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur
that right to continue in an elected office is neither a constitutional nor a
common law right but it is a statutory right. The term of Agricultural
Produce Market Committee can be extended by the State Government by
47 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
exercising its discretion in view of section 14(3), second proviso of the Act
of 1963. It is not obligatory to extend the term of APMC after the period of
five years.
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 office. Right
to continue in an elected office 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 five years term. The factual scenario arising out of
respective petitions of APMCs has projected a picture that the State has
used its discretionary powers in an arbitrary and capricious manner. As
discussed herein before, certain APMCs have been given extension
without assigning any reasons and certain APMCs are not 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
48 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
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 regarding the appointment of Administrators. 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 fulfilling 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. 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.
56. With these reasons, we conclude and proceed to pass the
following order :-
ORDER
(i) The impugned decisions of the State authorities of appointing
Administrators in respect of the APMC Aurangabad, APMC
Gangakhed, APMC Shrirampur, APMC Chakur, APMC
Pachora, APMC Jamner, APMC Amalner and APMC
Ambajogai are hereby quashed and set aside.
49 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .
(ii) The State authorities are directed to take decision afresh on
the proposals of extension of the Board of APMCs submitted
by the petitioners APMCs by taking into consideration the
appointment of Administrators in State of Maharashtra in view
of postponement of elections of APMCs due to Covid-19
pandemic and also the record of complaints if any against
the Board of Directors.
(iii) However, the Board of above said APMCs shall not take
policy decisions, till the State authorities take decision on their
proposal a fresh.
(iv) Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(v) Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
(vi) Civil Applications also stand disposed of. No costs.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
mta
