Bombay High Court
Randhir Govindrao Pawar And Another vs The District Collector And Others on 26 August, 2024
(1) production-3-wp-9189-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9189 OF 2024
RANDHIR GOVINDRAO PAWAR AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 26th AUGUST, 2024.
P.C.:-
1. Leave to correct prayer Clause (B). Amendment to be carried
out within a period of three days from today.
2. Heard Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned Advocate appearing for
the petitioners.
3. The petitioners seek to challenge notices dated 20.08.2024
and 21.08.2024 issued by respondent no.1-Collector convening
special meeting dated 27.08.2024 in terms of Section 23-A of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short 'APMC Act, 1963').
Mr. Gangakhedkar would submit that requisition notices for
special meeting were not sent to Collector under intimation to
Directors. Similarly, Collector has not recorded subjective
satisfaction before convening special meeting of Committee. On
these two grounds he urges that impugned notices be quashed and
set aside. To buttress his submissions he relies upon the judgment
of this Court in case of Dinesh s/o Sheshrao Thakre Vs.
Collector, Nagpur District, Nagpur1, particularly he places his
1 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 460.
(2) production-3-wp-9189-2024.odt
reliance on observations appearing in paragraph no.9, which states
thus:
"The object behind making a requisition and sending it to the
Judgment wp6532.13 Collector under provisions of sub-
section [2] of Section 23A is, that it is for the Collector to
arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the requirement of the
aforesaid provisions namely that such requisition has been
duly signed by not less than half of the total number of
members entitled to vote, has been duly complied with. Under
sub -section [3] of the aforesaid Section, the Collector has been
given a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such
requisition to convene a special meeting. While considering
the provisions of sub-section [2] and sub-section [3] of Section
23A of the said Act, it is clear that the Collector has to act,
once such a requisition is made to him, with intimation to the
Director. The jurisdiction that has been conferred by the
aforesaid section is only on the Collector, and it is he who has
to take further steps as stipulated by sub-section [3] of Section
23A in the matter of convening a special meeting."
4. Perusal of requisition submitted under Section 23-A of the
APMC Act, 1963 depicts that it has been signed by in all 13
Directors. In pursuance to the said requisition, the Collector has
issued impugned notices. Whether there was compliance of the
provisions contained under Section 23-A(2) and (3) of the APMC
Act, 1963, needs to be examined. However, for that part
proceeding in pursuance of the notices need not be stayed.
However, result of such proceeding can be directed to be kept in
abeyance till further hearing of this writ petition. Consequently,
following order is passed:
ORDER
a. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 23.09.2024.
The learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondent nos.1 and 16.
b. In addition to Court notice, the petitioners shall be at liberty
to serve other respondents by any other alternate mode as
(3) production-3-wp-9189-2024.odt
permissible under law and file affidavit of service before the
returnable date.
c. Till the next date of hearing, result of proceeding initiated
under impugned notices shall be kept in abeyance.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/August-2024
