[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Agricultural Produce Market ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 19 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:37049
(1) wp13934.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13934 OF 2018
1. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, .. Petitioners
Newasa, Through its Chairman,
Shri Kadubal s/o. Baburao Kardile,
Age. 70 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Gidegaon,Tq. Newasa,
District - Ahmednagar.
2. The Secretary,
The Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation and Textile Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Shri Devidas s/o. Sadashiv Salunkhe,
M/s. Subhash Prakashan Company,
Newasa Market Yard, Tq. Newasa,
District - Ahmednagar.
3. The Director of Marketing,
Pune.
4. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar.
5. Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Newasa,
District - Ahmednagar.
(2) wp13934.18
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. S.R. Sapkal a/w. Mr.R.N. Patil, Mr.
Amit Gadekar, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for the respondent-State.
Mr. V.D. Hon, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. A.V. Hon a/w. Mr. S.S. Kote, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 11.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.12.2025
J U D G M E N T :
-
01. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
02. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard for final
disposal by consent of the parties.
03. This petition raises an exception to an order passed by the
learned Minister dated 20.11.2018 allowing Revision Application filed by
respondent No.2. The Revision was filed under Section 43 of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as the "APMC Act"]. The
petitioner is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee [for short
"APMC"], established under the APMC Act. Petitioner No.2 is the
Secretary of the APMC. Respondent Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 are the State and
(3) wp13934.18
its Authorities having power under the APMC Act. Respondent No.2 is
the Revision Applicant before the learned Minister, whose revision came
to be allowed.
04. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the learned
Minister has directed to continue lease in favour of respondent No.2 and
also to continue his possession over the plot No.1, Gat No. 109 by
extending the lease. The learned Minister thereby quashed and set aside
order passed by the learned Director, Marketing dated 27.03.2018. The
Director, Marketing had allowed the appeal of the petitioner. The
Director, Marketing had rejected the appeal of respondent No.2 and
confirmed the order passed by the Market Committee.
05. Facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the
petitioner is engaged in the work of Market Committee. It has power to
grant license to persons to carry on business of sale-purchase of
agricultural produce in the premises of the Committee. It has also given
on lease shops to said licensees for a period of 30 years. The Committee
runs market yard in Gat No. 109 in Market Committee area of Newasa.
Respondent No.2 was given one shop on lease for 30 years on
04.10.1980. Said term of 30 years expired on 03.10.2010. The
(4) wp13934.18
Committee had undertaken various development works and was in need
of some area. The petitioner, therefore, decided not to renew the lease
and to take possession from respondent No.2 of the shop. The
respondent, however, did not give possession. He was directed to remain
present in a meeting dated 20.04.2015. It was communicated to
respondent No.2 and other shop-holders that the Committee will extend
lease for five years. However, respondent No.2 insisted for executing
lease for 30 years. Other two shop-holders, however, shown readiness
to deliver possession.
06. The petitioner, therefore, issued notice on 19.01.2016 and
directed the respondent to vacate plot and give vacant possession. In a
meeting the Committee decided to take possession of the plot from
respondent No.2. Said notice dated 19.01.2016 came to be challenged
by the respondent by filing revision before the Director Marketing. The
Director in Revision No. 16 of 2016 directed the Committee to restore
possession of the shop to respondent No.2 vide interim order dated
10.03.2016. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the order before this
Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3304 of 2016. Said petition was
dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed against the same, also came to be
dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is directed to the Director
(5) wp13934.18
Marketing to proceed with the main revision. The Director Marketing
allowed the revision by judgment and order dated 03.01.2017. The
Committee preferred appeal to the learned Minister challenging judgment
of the Director. Said appeal came to be dismissed by the learned
Minister on 18.04.2018. It is allegation of the petitioner that respondent
No.2 is creating sub-tenancy in the premises in favour of one Sunil
Vitthal Salunkhe. The petitioner, thereafter, again issued notice on
06.10.2017 to respondent No.2 to handover possession. The APMC filed
Civil Suit bearing No.789 of 2017 in the Civil Court seeking possession.]
07. Pending the revision before the Director Marketing, the Asstt.
Registrar issued directions on 27.04.2016 to issue licenses in favour of
respondent No.2. However, the petitioner took possession on
03.05.2017 and rejected application for extension of lease and renewal
of license. In the meantime, the Director decided Revision Application
No. 15 of 2016 on 03.01.2017 and refused to grant extension of lease in
favour of respondent No.2.
08. The respondent also filed appeal before the Asstt. Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Newasa under section 9A of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act. The Asstt. Registrar vide order dated
(6) wp13934.18
29.06.2017 issued directions to the petitioner directing to take decision
for renewal of license and extension of time. The petitioner passed
detailed resolution on 03.08.2017 and rejected extension of respondent
No.2 and issue of license. Same was challenged by the respondent by
filing Petition No. 40 of 2017. The Director rejected the appeal of
respondent No.2 by order dated 27.03.2018. Against that, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Minister. It is in this appeal, the
impugned order is passed making the petitioner to come to this Court.
09. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sapkal for the petitioners mainly
argued that there is no jurisdiction available with the learned Minister to
decide proceeding under section 43 of the Act in view of Notification
dated 02.04.1980, issued under section 58 of the APMC Act. By way of
said notification, the power is now vested with the Secretary. When the
powers are vested with the Secretary, the learned Minister could not
have decided the revision. Thus,the order passed by the learned Minister
is without jurisdiction. He has taken this Court through section 43 of the
Act and Notification under section 58 of the Act. He submits that once
powers are delegated under section 43 to the Dy. Director Marketing, it
was not open for the learned Minister to entertain the appeal/revision. He
submits that having exercised powers under section 43 of the Act, by the
(7) wp13934.18
Director, said powers cannot be exercised by the learned Minister. He
thus challenged the order passed by the Director. The learned Minister
has thus exercised the Second Revision, which is not permissible under
the law. The order, thus, is without jurisdiction. He relies upon
judgment in the case of Dr. Dipraj P. Ilamkar Vs. Agriculture
Produce Market, AIROnline 2019 Bom 2100.
10. As against this, learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Hon for respondent
No.2 vehemently opposes this petition. He submits that the learned
Minister has rightly exercised the jurisdiction. The Act provides for
remedies of appeal/revision etc. The appeal is provided under sections 8
and 9 of the Act, whereas section 43 of the Act provides for revision.
Section 43 is residuary power, with a view to keep watch on the
Authorities. There is no bar under section 43 of the Act. As such, the
revision can be filed even when no appeal is filed. Section 52B of the Act
provides appeal to the State Government against an order passed by the
Director. He invited attention to section 52B, sub-section(1) clause (b).
He submits that thus, the learned Minister has power over the Director.
So far as the Notification is concerned, he submits that by way of
Notification, no power given to any Authority by the Act can be taken
taken away. Even when the power is delegated to the subordinate, the
(8) wp13934.18
Authority still retains power and it is always open for such Authorities to
exercise the powers. His further argument is that no prejudice is caused
to the petitioners. Since the Director refused to entertain the revision, it
was open for the respondent to approach the State Government. On
merit he argues that the learned Minister has rightly passed the order.
Respondent No.2 is always ready to comply with the conditions. He
relies upon Raja Venkateswarlu & Anr. Vs. Mada Venkata Subbaiah
and Anr., (2017) 15 SCC 659 and T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar,
(2008) 5 SCC 633. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Hon further submits that
even otherwise merely because section 43 is quoted, it will not take away
jurisdiction of the learned Minister of exercising powers. In the present
case even if revision is not maintainable, the appeal still lies against the
order passed by the Director. He submits that the powers available with
the State are the original powers and prays for dismissal of the petition.
11. Learned AGP also supports the impugned order. He submits
that the learned Minister has rightly exercised the powers and no fault
can be found with said exercise.
12. So far as jurisdiction is concerned, this Court has to consider
whether the learned Minister has power to entertain the revision under
(9) wp13934.18
section 43 of the Act, in view of Notification dated 02.04.1980. Section
43 gives power to the State Government to call for revisional powers to
examine proceeding of any Market Committee or of the Director. The
Director is vested with the authority to entertain the revision in respect
of decisions of the Market Committee or an officer empowered to
exercise the powers of the Market Committee or of the Director for the
purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the
legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by the Market
Committee. It further gives power to cancel/modify/annul or reverse the
decision or order or proceedings of the earlier Authority. By way of
Notification under section 58, the State Government has power to
delegate its powers to the Director or any other officer or person. The
powers of the Director can be delegated to any other officer or person
specified in the Notification. Thus, section 58 of the Act gives the State
Government power to delegate its power to the director. The Power of
the Director also can be delegated to any other officer or person specified
in the Notification.
13. Notification dated 02.04.1980 is issued by the Government in
the name of Governor. By the said Notification, the Director is given
power of the State Government under sections, 3,4,17, 30-A, 43, in
( 10 ) wp13934.18
relation to decisions or orders passed by the Market Committee. The
powers of the District Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies is delegated
with powers of the State Government under sections 3,4,17, 30-A, 44,
45, 57(4) and 61(1). It is thus clear that the powers of the State
Government under section 43 are given to the Director Marketing. Thus,
there is no dispute that it is the Director, who is vested with the power of
revision. Thus, revision was rightly filed before the Director. Having filed
before the Director, respondent No.2 could not have gone to the learned
Minister, as the Revision was already entertained by the Director. There
was no question of filing second Revision before the learned Minister.
14. In the case of Dr. Dipraj P. Ilamkar [supra], APMC had
filed appeal before the learned Minister for Cooperation under section 52-
B of the Act. The learned Minister allowed the appeal and set aside order
passed by the District Dy. Registrar, thereby prayer of the APMC was
superseded under section 45 of the APMC Act. It was argued that under
section 52B, power was not available with the learned Minister and the
order passed by the learned Minister was without jurisdiction. In the
said case it was argued that the order passed by the District Dy.
Registrar itself was under exercise of power delegated to him by the
State Government. Once the Authority has exercised power, it was not
( 11 ) wp13934.18
open for the Government to exercise said power again. It was held that
under Section 52B appeal lies before the State Government against the
decisions or orders passed by the Directors. The District Dy. Registrar
being delegative of the Government itself, the order passed by the
District Dy. Registrar would be effectively an order passed by the State
Government itself and therefore the appeal against such order before the
State Government is not implemented. It was thus held that the appeal
before the learned Minister was not maintainable.
15. In the case of Raja Venkateswarlu [supra], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that misquoting of the provision would not affect the
jurisdiction. If the power is available, the Court can still exercise the
power. In the said case, the application was filed for police protection in
execution proceeding. The application was filed under section 151 of the
CPC. The Trial Court granted the application. The High Court interferred
with the order of holding that such power is available under Order 21
Rule 32, and the application, therefore, can be entertained filed only
under order 21 Rule 32. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that merely
wrong section was quoted invoking inherent jurisdiction, is no reason to
reject the application. The question needs to be considered as to whether
executing Court has jurisdiction.
( 12 ) wp13934.18
16. In the case of T. Nagappa [supra], application was filed
under section 243 of the Cr.P.C. by quoting wrong provision of section
243 of the Cr.P.C. It was observed that non-mentioning or wrong
mentioning of provision of law is of no relevance, as Court has requisite
power to pass orders.
17. Arguments of both sides, therefore, need to be considered in
view of above judgments. In the present case, argument of learned Sr.
Advocate Mr. Sapkal is that even if appeal is to be treated, even then the
learned Minister has no power to entertain the appeal in view of
delegtion of power to the Director. Whether it is revision or appeal, it was
maintainable only before the Director. The Director having exercised the
power in revision, same cannot be challenged even in appeal before the
learned Minister. The matter is mainly argued on this legal point. This
Court thus finds that when the learned Minister has no power, the second
revision before the learned Minister was not maintainable. It was open
for respondent No.2 to adopt proper course and challenge the order
passed by the Director, by adopting recourse to law by filing writ petition.
18. This Court thus finds that when order passed by the learned
( 13 ) wp13934.18
Minister is passed in the revision, which was not maintainable, this Court
has no option but to allow this Writ Petition.
19. This Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).
Rule made absolute accordingly.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2025/Nov25/wp13934.18
