Durgabakshsingh Rampratapsingh ... vs District Deputy Registrar, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2905 Bom

                                                              1                                  1-7166-2019.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.7166/2019

                Durgabakshsingh Rampratapsingh Thakur
                                   Vs.
  District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati and others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                         Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders

                                  Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for petitioner
                                  Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for Respondent No.1
                                  Mr. H.D. Dangre & Mr. H.B. Dhore Advocate for Respondent No.3


                                  CORAM:       AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 24th MARCH, 2023

Heard Mr. De, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition questions the order dated 26/09/2019, passed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 45(1) of the APMC Act, whereby the petitioner has been held to be disqualified from the post of Director of the APMC, Dhamangaon Railway. The basic ground for assailing the impugned order is that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court by the order in WP No. 3442/2018, dated 09/4/2019, had issued the following directions.

"21. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 11.06.2018 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.1 is granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner after providing copies of the aforesaid two reports

2 1-7166-2019.odt

and all such other material that the respondent No.1 desires to rely upon, while calling upon the petitioner to explain the charges levelled against him. The respondent No.1 shall give proper opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation. The explanation already submitted on record along with documents annexed therewith shall also be taken into consideration by the respondent no.1 before proceeding to pass any order in the matter. The equiry undertaken afresh by respondent no.1, if any, in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, shall be completed expeditiously and in any case within a period of three months from today."

2. In pursuance to this direction, the matter was remanded back to the respondent 1, whereupon the impugned order dated 26/09/2019 has been passed (page 19). It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the specific directions as contained in para 21 in the judgment dated 09/4/2019, the opinion dated 23/09/2019 of the Maharashtra State Marketing Board was not supplied to the petitioner. It is contended that since the impugned indicates that the aforesaid opinion has been specifically relied upon in rendering the finding of disqualification of the petitioner, the supply of the copy of the same to the petitioner, in terms of what has been said in para 21 of the judgment 09/4/2019 in WP No.3442/2018 was necessary. It is therefore, contended that since this

3 1-7166-2019.odt

was not done, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

3. The learned AGP does not dispute that the copy of the opinion of the Maharashtra State Marketing Board, dated 23/9/2019 was not supplied to the petitioner. She however tries to justify the impugned order contending that the opinion was not required, considering the language of Section 45(1) of the Act and therefore, non supply, according to her does not have any adverse effect upon the impugned order, nor does it constitute the violation of the directions contained in para 21 of the judgment dated 09/4/2019. Mr. Dangre along with Mr. Dhore, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 supports the submission of learned AGP and contend that since the requirement of the opinion is not there whether the opinion is considered or not is superfluous and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be maintained.

4. The language used by this Court in para 21 of the judgment dated 09/4/2019 in WP no. 3442/2018, is peremptory inasmuch as a specific direction has been given to supply to the petitioner "all such other material that the respondent No. 1 desires to rely upon, while calling upon the petitioner to explain the charges levelled against

4 1-7166-2019.odt

him". This was in view of the findings rendered in para 20 that the material that came on record was not put up to the petitioner in order to afford him a proper opportunity to explain. It is thus axiomatic that the copy of the opinion Maharashtra State Agricultural Board dated 23//9/2019 ought to have been supplied to the petitioner. Had it been a case that the opinion was not being relied upon by the respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order, that would have been a different situation altogether. However impugned order (pg 28) specifically places reliance upon this opinion of the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board, to hold the petitioner guilty and therefore, liable for disqualification. That in my considered opinion cannot be permitted and specifically so, in view of what has been directed by this Court while deciding WP No.3442/2018. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1, with a direction to conduct the enquiry as indicated hereinafter. The petitioner, shall remain present before the respondent No. 1 on 27 th March, 2023 at 11:00 AM and shall on the same day submit a list of documents which he claims not to have been supplied to him. Upon receiving the list, the respondent No.1 shall immediately supply the

5 1-7166-2019.odt

documents to the petitioner on 29th March, 2023. The petitioner shall thereafter submit his explanation by 31st March, 2023. The matter shall thereafter be heard on 3rd April, 2023 and shall be decided by 6th April, 2023. These directions have been passed in view of the observations of this Court in para 20 of the judgment rendered in WP No.3442/2018. The petition is accordingly allowed in above terms. No costs.

JUDGE MP Deshpande