Bombay High Court
Harishchandra Ramprasad Shinde ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 March, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 wp 6052.20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6052 OF 2020
1. Harishchandra S/o Ramprasad Shinde,
Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Agril.
R/o Jawala (Bdk), Tq. Sengaon,
District Hingoli.
2. Shankarrao Babarao Patil,
Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Wadad, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
3. Ravjirao Ramrao Wadkute,
Age : 70 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Babhulgaon, Tq. Sengaon,
District Hingoli.
4. Prashantkumar Vasantkumar Soni,
Age : 54 Years, Occu. : Business,
R/o Bhatt Colony, Hingoli,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
5. Prabhakar Namdevrao Shelke,
Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Ghota (Devi),
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
6. Jeejabai Shriram Shinde,
Age : 55 Years, Occu. : HH & Agril.,
R/o Sawa, Post Bhandegaon,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
7. Limbajirao Vikram Mutkule,
Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Hanvatkheda,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2021 22:35:51 :::
2 wp 6052.20
8. Baban Kisanrao Sawant,
Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Narsi Namdev, Dist. Hingoli.
9. Dattarao Punjajirao Jadhav,
Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Kadpi, Post Narsi Namdeo,
Dist. Hingoli.
10. Narayan Namdeorao Vaidya,
Age : 61 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Phalegaon, Dist. Hingili.
11. Uttamrao Rabhaji Wabale,
Age : 66 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Umra (Wabale),
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through - Secretary,
Co-operation & Textile & Marketing
Department, M.S. Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Hingoli District, Hingoli.
3. The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Pune, Dist. Pune.
4. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Hingoli,
District Hingoli.
5. The Administrator,
Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Hingoli, Superintendent of the Office
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2021 22:35:51 :::
3 wp 6052.20
Of District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Hingoli,
District Hingoli.
6) Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli,
Through Its Secretary. .. Respondents
Shri Dilip J. Choudhari, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. Vaishali N. Jadhav Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Shri M. S. Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
Shri Abhijit Choudhari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of parties taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner assails the order rejecting the application of
the petitioners for extension of the term of the managing
committee and superseding the managing committee.
3. Mr. Choudhari, the learned advocate for petitioners
submits that, pursuant to the result of the elections declared on
16th March, 2015 the first meeting was held on 09 th April, 2015.
The term of the managing committee was to expire on 09 th April,
2020. On 24.01.2020 the Government extended the elections of
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hingoli (for short
"APMC") by six months. On 08 th April, 2020 the term of the
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2021 22:35:51 :::
4 wp 6052.20
managing committee was not extended and the administrator
was not appointed. On 10th July, 2020, the Government further
extended the elections of the APMC for six months. Abruptly on
19th August, 2020, the administrator is appointed on the
respondent No. 6/APMC. The learned advocate submits that,
order rejecting the application of the petitioners for extension of
term is without reason. The respondents are adopting dual
policy. APMC favoured by the respondent/State are granted
extension and the application for extension of APMC like the
respondent No. 6 is rejected without assigning any reasons.
4. The learned advocate for petitioners refers to Section 14 of
the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1963.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents/State submits that, the managing committee of the
APMC does not have vested right in seeking extension of their
term. It is discretion of the Government to extend the term
considering all the pros and cons of the matter. Conscious
decision is taken in not extending the term of the APMC. The
respondents on arriving at the subjective satisfaction about
functioning of the managing committee has rejected the
application for extension of the term. The assessment was made
of the past performance and illegality committed.
6. Perusing the impugned order, it is manifest that no
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2021 22:35:51 :::
5 wp 6052.20
reasons are assigned while rejecting the application of the
managing committee of the respondent No. 6 for extension of
their term. Instances are quoted by the petitioners of other
managing committees of the APMC, who are being granted
extension. It is not a policy decision of the State not to grant
extension to the APMC, whose term has expired.
7. We have under our judgment and order dated 01st March,
2021 in Writ Petition No. 5164 of 2020 with other connected writ
petitions considered the aspect as raised in the present writ
petition and had allowed the writ petitions. The present
petitioners appear to be similarly situated.
8. For the reasons recorded in the judgment and order dated
01st March, 2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5164
of 2020 with other connected writ petitions, we pass similar
order.
ORDER
(i) The impugned decision of the State authorities of
appointing Administrator in respect of the respondent No.
6/APMC Hingoli is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) The State authorities are directed to take decision afresh
on the proposal seeking extension of the Managing Committee of
respondent NO. 6/APMC submitted by the petitioners by taking
into consideration the appointment of Administrator in State of
6 wp 6052.20
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 respondent No. 6/APMC shall
not take policy decisions, till the State authorities take decision
on their application/proposal a fresh.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/March 21
