Bombay High Court
Nanasaheb Punjaji Pawar vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee ... on 26 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:19337 (1) wp-3964-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3964 OF 2024
Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar,
through its I/c Secretary,
Shri Sahebrao S/o Ramrao Wable,
Age: 45 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o: Belapur, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar (Cell No. 8329879283) ..Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Marketing and Textile Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, 3rd Floor,
New Central Building, Pune 411001
3. District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar
4. Assistant Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Rahata,
Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar ..Respondents
....
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh h/f Mr. U. B. Gite, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Mr. P. D. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Applicant/Intervenor.
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7083 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3964 OF 2024
Nanasaheb s/o Punjaji Pawar,
Age: 73 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Takaliban, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar. ..Applicant
(2) wp-3964-2024.odt
Versus
1. Agricultural Produce Market Committee Shriampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar,
through its In charge Secretary
Shri Sahebrao s/o Ramrao Wable,
Age: 45 Yrs., occu. Service,
R/o Belapur, Tq. Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Marketing & Textile Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.32.
3. Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State,
3rd Floor, New Central Bldg.,
Pune-411 001.
4. District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar.
5. Assistant Registrar,
CS, Rahata, Tq. Rahata,
District Ahmednagar. ..Respondents
....
Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. P. D. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh h/f Mr. U. B. Gite, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 26th AUGUST 2024.
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of
admission.
2. The petitioner approaches this Court with following prayers:
"B. By way of appropriate Writ order or directions in the
like nature, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly quash and
set aside the impugned order dated 18/03/2024 recorded in
(3) wp-3964-2024.odt
Roznama by the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State,
Pune, in Appeal No. 7/2024, to the extent of refusing to
grant stay to the order dated 26/12/2023 passed by the
District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Ahmednagar and consequently allow the Stay Application
filed by the petitioner in Appeal No. 7/2024.
C. By way of appropriate Writ order or directions in the
like nature, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly quash and
set aside the impugned order dated 26/03/2024 passed by
the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune,
recorded in Roznama of Appeal No. 7/2024, thereby
refusing to continue the 'Status Quo' order dated
18/03/2024, even, though, the petitioner made specific
application on 26/03/2024 for continuation of the Status
Quo order granted on 18/03/2024."
3. This Court while issuing notice to respondents vide order
dated 16.04.2024 granted ex-parte interim order directing
continuation of status quo as granted by respondent no.1 under
order dated 18.03.2024. The interim relief granted is continued
time to time and same is still in operation.
4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that predetermined approach of Director of
Marketing-respondent no.2 can be observed in favour of dismissal
of Appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 52(B) of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1963 and Rules, 1967 (for short 'APMC Act'). By
inviting attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply tendered on
behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3, he endeavours to impress upon
this Court that respondents have not only justified impugned order
dated 26.12.2023, but also justified Inspection Report dated
16.02.2024 and consequential notice dated 04.03.2024. Mr.
Deshmukh would, therefore, submit that the petitioner has every
apprehension that Appellate Authority would not decide
proceeding on merit, but likely to succumb external pressure.
(4) wp-3964-2024.odt
5. Per contra, Mr. Thombre, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent/Intervenor and learned A.G.P. for
respondents/Authorities submit that present writ petition is filed
with limited grievance that interim order dated 26.03.2024 was not
continued in pursuance of Application dated 26.03.2024 filed by the
petitioner. They would submit that respondent no.2, who is ceased
with the Appeal is under obligation to decide the same in
accordance with law and no presumption can be drawn that he
would be biased in dealing with the Appeal.
6. Having considered submissions advanced, apparently the
petitioner approached respondent no.2 by filing Appeal under
Section 52(B) of the APMC Act impugning order dated 26.12.2023
passed by DDR-respondent no.3, thereby raising challenge to the
order dated 26.12.2023 passed under Section 40(A) and (B) of the
APMC Act. The said Appeal is still pending. The petitioner has
been protected with interim order dated 16.04.2024 passed in this
petition. However, fact remains that Appeal No.7/2024 filed by the
petitioner before respondent no.2 under Section 52(B) of the APMC
Act requires decision on merit. There is no reason to assume that
respondent no.2 would not deal same on merit or would be
influenced by external pressure. It is true that Mr. Sandeepkumar
Prabhakar Rudraksha, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies
has filed affidavit-in-reply being authorized by respondent nos.2
and 3 in this writ petition and in paragraph no.13 justified order
dated 26.12.2023 stating it to be legal and valid in terms of Section
40(A) and (B) of the APMC Act, but that itself would not be
sufficient to draw presumption of bias against petitioner. The
respondent no.2 would be under obligation to deal with all
contentions of the petitioner being Quasi Judicial authority and
(5) wp-3964-2024.odt
statement in affidavit-in-reply shall not bind him for taking
decision on merit.
7. So far as consequential Inspection report dated 16.02.2024
and notice dated 04.03.2024 are concerned, they are supervening
events occurred during pendency of Appeal before respondent no.2.
The petitioner may take up appropriate proceeding against
Inspection Report dated 16.02.2024, so also notice dated
04.03.2023, if advised. Pendency of Appeal before respondent no.2
would not be impediment for taking up such action.
8. In aforesaid circumstances writ petition can be disposed of by
continuing interim protection granted by this Court under order
dated 16.04.2024 till disposal of Appeal pending before respondent
no.2. Hence, following order:
ORDER
a. Writ Petition is partly allowed.
b. Interim relief granted by this Court under order dated
16.04.2024 i.e. status quo under order dated 18.03.2024 by
Appellate Authority shall remain in force till disposal of Appeal.
c. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise challenge to the
Inspection Report dated 16.02.2024, so also further notice dated
04.03.2024 in appropriate proceeding as permissible under law.
d. The respondent no.2 shall decide Appeal by granting
opportunity to the concerned parties strictly on merits and in tune
with the provisions of law.
e. Writ Petition is disposed of.
(6) wp-3964-2024.odt
f. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, present Civil Application
is also disposed of.
g. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/August-2024
