Ramesh Prakash Sonwane And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6432 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ramesh Prakash Sonwane And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 4 October, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:27687
                                                                WP-11010-2021+.odt




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11010           OF 2021

          Ramesh Prakash Sonwane & Others              ...Petitioners

                  Versus

          The State of Maharashtra & Others            ...Respondents

                                        WITH
                       CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10990 OF 2021

          Chatrabhuj Baliram Lamb & Others             ...Petitioners

                  Versus

          The State of Maharashtra & Others            ...Respondents

                                      ***
           • Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner in
             WP/111010/2021
           • Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioner in
             WP/10990/2021
           • Mr. S. G. Sangle, Addl. GP for the Respondent/State
           • Mr. S. G. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6
           • Mr. N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 & 8
                                      ***

                                      CORAM               : R. M. JOSHI, J
                                      RESERVED ON         : SEPTEMBER 30, 2025
                                      PRONOUNCED ON       : OCTOBER 04, 2025

          ORDER :

1. These Petitions take exception to the order

dated 02.09.2021 passed by the Director of Marketing,

Maharashtra State, Pune, setting aside the order of

allotment of the plots on lease by Agricultural Produce

Market Committee, Dharur, Beed (for short 'Market

Umesh PAGE 1 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

Committee').

2. The facts, which led to the filing of these

Petitions, can be narrated in brief as under:

Petitioners are individuals who claim to have

been allotted the plots by APMC on lease adhering to

the procedure under the Maharashtra Agricultural

Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act,

1963 (for short 'the Act') being followed. It is the

case of the Petitioners that Market Committee decided

to allot the plots to the agriculturist and traders

dealing in the agricultural products. For this purpose,

revised development plan was submitted to the Director

of Marketing who approved the development plan on

20.12.2018 whereby approval was granted for lease of

214 plots. A layout plan was also approved and out of

214 plots, 192 plots were allotted to the respective

persons and 22 plots remained vacant.

3. It is further case of the Petitioners that

Market Committee approved resolution in meeting dated

14.01.2020 for allotment of the 22 vacant plots by

inviting applications from eligible candidates.

Accordingly, notice was published in the newspapers on

Umesh PAGE 2 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

26.05.2020 inviting such applications for allotment of

the vacant plots. Pursuant to the said advertisement,

in all 30 applications were received and those

applications were kept for consideration before the

Board of Directors of Market Committee in meeting held

on 16.06.2020. During the scrutiny, it was found that

out of 30 applications 8 applications were out of area

of operation of Respondent - Market Committee and

hence, they came to be rejected being ineligible. The

remaining 22 applications including the applications of

the Petitioners were accepted by the Board of Directors

by passing resolution in the said meeting. Market

Committee, therefore, submitted proposal to the

Director of Marketing for allotment of the plots to 22

eligible persons. Director of Marketing by order dated

09.07.2020 granted approval to the allotment of 22

plots including plots allotted to the Petitioners. On

receipt of approval, plots were allotted in favour of

Petitioners and others and lease agreements were

executed on 16.07.2020 for a period of 10 years. As per

lease agreements, Petitioners have deposited the

requisite deposit, annual rent and transfer fees with

Market Committee. Consequently, possession was handed

Umesh PAGE 3 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

over of respective plots to the lessees including

Petitioners.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that

Chandrakant Lagad and four others made an application

to Respondent No. 2 i.e., Minister of Cooperation

Marketing and Textile Department seeking cancellation

of the approval given for allotment of the plots and

resolution dated 16.06.2020. Director of Marketing

called upon District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies (for short 'DDR') to make an enquiry and

submit report pursuant to the complaint application

dated 06.01.2021 made by said persons. Accordingly,

Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (for short

'ARS') was asked to conduct enquiry and to submit

report. A notice came to be issued on 11.02.2021 by the

ARS to the Market Committee seeking explanation on the

applications/complaints. Market Committee submitted its

reply on 24.03.2021 giving details about the procedure

followed for the allotment of the 22 plots. ARS

submitted report on 27.04.2021 stating that the

Committee has followed due procedure for the allotment

of the plots and the same has been approved by the

Umesh PAGE 4 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

Director of Marketing on 09.07.2020.

5. It is further case of the Petitioners that one

Sadik Inamdar also lodged complaint with Secretary, Co-

operation Department on 03.05.2021 and Respondent Nos.

3 to 6 were asked by Respondent No. 1 to submit the

report within 15 days. On the said complaint of Sadik

Inamdar, Respondent No. 3 - Director of Marketing

stayed his own order dated 09.07.2020 granting approval

to the allotment of plots. Thereafter, DDR appointed

three members enquiry committee for making enquiry into

the allegations. It is the case of the Petitioners that

the enquiry report dated 27.04.2021 of ARS was not

considered. It is alleged by the Petitioners that

though there was three members enquiry committee, the

report is signed by only one member. It is alleged that

under the pressure of Respondent No. 4 incorrect report

came to be submitted by the said Committee on

29.06.2021. Director of Marketing issued notice dated

12.07.2021 to the complainant and Respondent Nos. 4 and

6 and hearing was scheduled on 29.07.2021. Market

Committee submitted its written say reiterating that

the due procedure has been followed while allotting

Umesh PAGE 5 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

plots to the Petitioners and others. It is claimed by

the Petitioners that no notice was given to the

Petitioners in the said enquiry and after getting

knowledge of the hearing, Petitioners applied for

intervention and their intervention came to be allowed.

A specific plea was raised before the Director

Marketing that he has no authority to review his own

order and if any person is aggrieved by the order of

grant of approval of the Director Marketing, an Appeal

could have been preferred against the same. It is

claimed that in absence of challenge to the said order

of granting approval, no proceedings are maintainable

before Director Marketing.

6. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that in

spite of this objection, Director Marketing passed

impugned order dated 02.09.2021 cancelling allotment of

22 plots as per resolution no. 6 dated 14.01.2020 and

resolution no. 10 dated 16.06.2020.

7. At the outset, learned Counsel for contesting

Respondents and learned AGP raised objection with

regard to the maintainability of the Petitions on the

ground that an order passed by the Director Marketing

Umesh PAGE 6 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

is appealable under Section 52B of the Act and as such,

Petitions are not maintainable. This submission is

resisted by the Counsels for the Petitioners by

submitting that the Director of Marketing had no

jurisdiction to pass any order and to review the

approval granted to the allotment of the plots to the

Petitioners. In support of their submissions that since

the order is without jurisdiction, the Petitions would

be maintainable, reference is made to the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Harbanslal Sahnia vs

Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 20013 AIR(SC) 2120.

8. On merit, it is the contention of the learned

Counsels for the Petitioners that admittedly Director

of Marketing granted approval to the decision of

allotment of plots to the Petitioners and others by

order dated 09.07.2020 and there is no

power/jurisdiction vested with the said Authority to

recall his own order. It is submitted that the order

impugned amounts to reviewing the order passed by the

Director Marketing granting approval to the allotment

of plots. Thus, it is contended that since the order is

without jurisdiction, deserves interference. It is

Umesh PAGE 7 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

further argued that there is sufficient material on

record in the form of reply of the Market Committee so

also the report of the ARS dated 27.04.2021 indicating

that prior to the allotment of the plots, procedure as

contemplated by the Act, was duly followed. It is

further argued that unless the order of approval is set

aside by the Appellate Authority in appropriate

proceedings, it is not open to cancel allotment as

sought to be done by passing impugned order. In this

regard, reference is made to the provisions of the Act,

more particularly, Section 58, which provids for the

power of the State government to delegate the powers of

any Authority to another Officer. It is submitted that

in exercise of said powers, State Government has issued

a notification whereby the powers of the Director

Marketing are delegated to the DDR and as such, the

Director had no jurisdiction to entertain the

proceedings. Thus, sum and substance of the contentions

of the learned Counsels for the Petitioners is that the

procedure adopted by the Director of Marketing is

contrary to the statutory provisions and in absence of

the powers of review, the order impugned cannot

sustain.

Umesh                                 PAGE 8 OF 18
                                                             WP-11010-2021+.odt




9.        Learned     Counsel       for        contesting       Respondents

supported the impugned order. It is submitted that it

was open for the Director of Marketing to invoke the

powers under Section 41-A of the Act to recall the

order passed on the ground that the procedure, as

required for the purpose of allotment of the plots, was

not duly followed. In this regard, it is his submission

that publication of advertisement ought to have been

done in the newspaper widely circulated in the area,

but the newspaper in which publication is done, has no

circulation in the concerned Taluka. It is further

argued that as per the report of the Enquiry Committee

only 22 applications were received against 22 plots, is

totally suspicious. It is his submission that under

Section 12(1) of the Act the prior approval of the

Director of Marketing was mandatory before publication

of allotment and since the same has not been done, the

order impugned is justified.

10. Learned AGP has also supported the impugned

order by citing the powers of the Director Marketing

under Section 41-A of the Act. It is his submission

that on complaint when it is brought to the notice of

Umesh PAGE 9 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

the said Authority about illegalities being committed

by the Market Committee in the allotment of the plots,

it was open for the Director to seek an enquiry into

the same and once the order has been passed, the only

remedy would be under Section 52B of the Act. On these

amongst other ground, dismissal of the Petitions is

sought.

11. At the outset, this Court would like to deal

with the objection raised about the maintainability of

the Petitions. It is sought to be argued on behalf of

the Respondents that since the Appeal is provided under

Section 52B of the Act against the order passed by the

Director Marketing, the Petitions are not maintainable.

This contention is resisted by the Petitioners

challenging the jurisdiction/Authority of the Director

Marketing to entertain any such issue.

12. For the purpose of deciding this issue, it

would be relevant to take note of certain facts.

Admittedly, Market Committee had obtained approval from

the Director Marketing on 20.12.2018 for lease of 214

plots. A layout plan was approved in respect of 214

plots. However, only 192 plots were allotted to the

Umesh PAGE 10 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

respective persons and 22 plots remained vacant. It is

in respect of these remaining plots, Market Committee

passed resolution on 14.01.2020 for allotment of the

said plots by inviting applications from eligible

candidates. A notice came to be published in the

newspaper on 26.05.2020. In all 30 applications were

received, out of 22 were found eligible for allotment

and accordingly, permission was obtained from Director

Marketing on 09.07.2020. Pursuant thereto, lease

agreements were executed, requisite amounts were

deposited by the Petitioners and other lessees and

possession of the plots were handed over to the

lessees. These facts indicate that the entire process

of the allotment of the plots was completed with

approval of the Director Marketing.

13. In the context of these facts, if Section 41-

A of the Act is perused, the same indicates that the

powers under Section 41-A are to be exercised before

the final decision has been taken. The said provision

reads thus:

Section 41A - Powers of the Directors to prohibit execution of resolution passed or order made by Committee, etc.

Umesh PAGE 11 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

(1) The Director may, on his own motion, or on report or complaint received by him, by order, prohibit the execution of a resolution passed or order made by the Committee or its Chairman or Vice-Chairman or any of its officer or servants of the Market Committee, if he is of the opinion that such resolution or order is prejudicial to the public interest or is likely to hinder efficient running of the business in any market area, principal market yard or sub-market yard or is against the provision of this Act or the rules or bye-laws made there under.

(2) Where the execution or further execution of a resolution or order is prohibited by an order made under sub-

section (1) and continuing in force, it shall be the duty of the Committee, if so required by the Director, to take any action which the Market Committee would have been entitled to take, if the resolution or order had never been passed or made and which is necessary for preventing the Chairman or Vice-Chairman or any of its officers or servants from doing or continuing to do anything under such resolution or order.

A bare perusal of the said provision clearly

indicate that it would be open for the Director

Marketing to enquire into the complaint in respect of

resolution passed by the Committee or order made by

Committee or Chairman/Vice Chairman and to stay the

Umesh PAGE 12 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

same so also to set it aside in appropriate case. The

said provision, however, could be exercise only to the

stage of decision of Committee or Officers/Authorities

of Committee. Once the decision of Committee gets

approval of the Director Marketing, it does not remain

to be a decision which could be taken exception by

invoking Section 41A of the Act. Having regard to the

nature of powers of Director Marketing the same are

exercisable only to the stage before approval of

decision/resolution of Committee. It does not

contemplate any power with the Director Marketing to

recall/review his own order. In the instant case, since

the decision of the Committee duly approved by Director

Marketing of allotment of the plots has been culminated

into actual execution of agreement, receipt of

requisite amounts and handing over of the possession,

and by no stretch of imagination it remains to stage of

resolution by Committee and hence, it cannot be said

that the same is covered by Section 41A of the Act.

14. Perusal of the Act does not indicate vesting

of powers with Director Marketing of recalling his own

order, since appeal has been provided against the same.

Umesh                           PAGE 13 OF 18
                                                                     WP-11010-2021+.odt

It is thus clear that Director Marketing has exercised

the powers, which were not available to him. Once an

order is passed on 09.07.2020 of granting approval to

the allotment of the plots to the Petitioners and

others, only remedy probably available for aggrieved

persons was to prefer an Appeal under Section 52B of

the Act. In absence of any power to review his own

order, the impugned order must be held to be without

jurisdiction.

15. At this stage, it would be pertinent to take

note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

of Harbanslal Sahnia (supra). Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the said judgment has observed that rule of exclusion

of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternate

remedy has no application at least in three

contingencies i.e., (i) where the Petition seeks

enforcement of fundamental rights, (ii) where there is

failure of principles of natural justice and (iii)

where the order of the proceedings are wholly without

jurisdiction or the vires of an Act and is challenged.

Herein this case, Director of Marketing had no

jurisdiction under Section 41-A to recall his own order

Umesh PAGE 14 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

of granting approval dated 09.07.2020 and as such, the

proceedings before the Director Marketing was without

jurisdiction. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to

hold that the Writ Petitions are maintainable and,

therefore, are entertained.

16. Coming back to the merit of the orders

impugned, it is necessary to take note of the certain

facts, at the cost of repetition, that there is already

an order passed by the Director Marketing on 09.07.2020

granting approval to the allotments of the plots to the

Petitioners and others. This is preceded by the

decision of Committee of allotment of plots on

20/12/2018. Admittedly, the said decision was approved

by Director Marketing and it is implemented to the

extent of allotment of 192 plots out of 214 plots. The

order of Director Marketing has not been challenged

under the provisions of the Act before Appellant

Authority.

17. Apart from this, it is necessary to take note

that none of the Petitioners are ever issued with any

notice to show cause as to why the plots allotted to

them should not be cancelled. Perusal of the impugned

Umesh PAGE 15 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

order indicates that on the basis of report of three

member committee it is observed that there is a breach

of condition of non completion of construction within

stipulated time. First of all, perusal of the condition

of lease agreement indicates that such period of

construction is three years, which has been said to be

three months in the impugned order. Moreover, even if

there was any such breach of the conditions of lease,

it was incumbent on the part of the Authority to issue

notices to the Petitioners and others to show cause as

to why action should not be taken against them for

breach of the condition of lease. In no circumstances

without issuance of notice to the concerned, allotment

could not be cancelled. Once admittedly, there is no

notice issued to the Petitioners and others in this

regard, question of the Authority being permitted to

take this as ground for cancellation of the allotment

does not arise.

18. One more aspect deserves considerable herein

this case is about there being no grievance/complaint

made by any person who was interested in the lease of

the plot but could not get opportunity to apply for

Umesh PAGE 16 OF 18 WP-11010-2021+.odt

want of knowledge of the advertisement. Pertinently,

one of the complainant himself was party to the

resolution passed by the Committee of allotment of the

plots to Petitioner and others. This Court also finds

substance in the contention of the counsel for the

Petitioner that on the face of it observations of three

members Committee that there was 22 applications for 22

plots is not correct, since admittedly so 30

applications were received. Moreover, there is complete

ignorance of the report of ARS holding that there is

compliance of due procedure before allotment of plots.

In the afore stated circumstances, assessing the order

impugned from any angle, this Court finds that the

order impugned cannot sustain.

19. The order impugned passed by the Director

Marketing being without jurisdiction and moreover not

in compliance of the principles of natural justice and

inconsistent with material facts on record, cannot

sustain. Petitioners, therefore, have made out a case

for causing interference in the impugned order.

Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside. Petitions

stand allowed in the aforestated terms.

Umesh                                PAGE 17 OF 18
                                              WP-11010-2021+.odt

20. It is however clarified that in case there is

breach of any conditions of lease by Petitioners or any

other lessees of the plots, it would be open for the

Authorities to take action in accordance with law.

                                       (R. M. JOSHI, J.)




Umesh                  PAGE 18 OF 18