Bombay High Court
Hukumchand Govindrao Aamdare And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2025:BHC-AS:40076-DB
WP-11553-25.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11553 OF 2025
VASANT
ANANDRAO WITH
IDHOL INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.29650 OF 2025
Digitally signed
by VASANT
ANANDRAO 1. Hukumchand Govindrao Aamdare )
IDHOL
Date: 2025.09.23
20:18:22 +0530 Age : 68 Years, Occ. : Agri., R/o. )
Civil Line, Nagpur, District - Nagpur )
2. Ashok s/o. Govindrao Dak )
Age : 58 Years, Occ. : Agri., )
R/o. Hanuman Chowk, Majalgaon, )
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed )
3. Jaydatta Sitaram Holkar, )
Age : Adult, Occ. : Agri., )
R/o. At Post Lasalgav, )
Tq. Niphad, Dist. Thane. )
4. Mina Mahadu Rathod )
Age : 45 Years, Occ. : Agri. & )
Household, R/o. Pishor, )
Tq. Kannad, )
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar )
1/20
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:47:45 :::
WP-11553-25.doc
5. Shilpa Shivaji Patil )
Age : 45 Years, Occ. : Agri. & )
Household, R/o. Sangli ) ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra )
Through the Secretary )
Marketing Department, )
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, )
Mumbai - 32 )
2. The State Co-operative Election )
Authority, Maharashtra State, )
Pune, Ground Floor, )
Old Central Building, Pune. )
3. The Director of Marketing, )
rd
Maharashtra State, Pune 3 Floor )
New Central Building, Pune - 001 )
4. The Deputy Registrar and District )
Election Officer Co-op. Societies, )
Thane, Gavdevi Bhaji Market, )
2/20
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:47:45 :::
WP-11553-25.doc
Thane (W)-602
5. Mumbai Agricultural Produce )
Market Committee, )
Administrative Building, )
Sector - 18, Vashi, )
Navi Mumbai - 400 703 ) ... Respondents
Mr.Nitin Gaware Patil with Mr.Divyesh Jain for the Petitioners.
Mr.B.V. Samant, Addl.GP with Mr.Ketan Joshi 'B' Panel Counsel
for the Respondent - State.
Mr.Umeshchandra Yadav for Respondent No.4.
CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Sandesh D. Patil, J.):
-
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the parties
and heard finally.
2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners are praying
for a declaration that inaction on the part of the Respondents in
not deciding proposal dated 7 th August, 2025 for extension of the
WP-11553-25.doc
term of the office of the Managing Director of Respondent No.5 is
illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the
Constitution of India. The Petitioners also prayed for a writ of
mandamus to extend the term of the office of the Managing
Director for a further period of six months starting from 31 st
August, 2025. There were other reliefs prayed as well.
3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, Respondent
No.3 passed the order dated 29 th August, 2025 appointing
Respondent No.6 as an Administrator.
4. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the first
meeting of Respondent No.5 was held on 31 st August, 2020. It is
contended by the Petitioners that as per the provisions of Section
15 of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC Act),
1963, the term of five years of Respondent No.5 - APMC was to
expire on 31st August, 2025. It is further contended that the
Respondents ought to have taken steps to hold elections of
Respondent No.5 within the prescribed time, however, the
Respondents did not take steps for holding elections. The then
WP-11553-25.doc
Managing Committee of Respondent No.5 had entered into
correspondence with Respondent No.4 for holding elections. It is
contended that by virtue of Section 14 of 1963 Act it was
necessary for Respondent No.1 to decide the proposal submitted
by Respondent No.5 within the stipulated time. The Petitioners
contended that the Petitioners and Respondent No.5 have taken
active steps for compiling preliminary voters list and have also
deposited election fund with Respondent No.4 by way of Demand
Draft of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is contended that inspite of all steps
taken by the Petitioners, the Respondents have not held election
and have simply sat over the application / proposal of the
Petitioners. The Respondents have over looked Section 14 as well
as Section 15 of the APMC Act.
5. The Petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of
Babasaheb Apparao Akat & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2010 SCC OnLine Bombay 175 . (Coram: A.M. Khanwilkar & S.S.
Shinde, JJ). The Petitioners have contended that this Hon'ble
Court has set aside appointment of Administrator as proposal of
petitioner was pending. It held that in that case similar facts arose
WP-11553-25.doc
where inspite of proposal for extension being pending the
Respondents proceeded to straightaway appoint an Administrator
to take over the office of Respondent No.5's Managing
Committee.
6. The Petitioners in support of their contentions have also
relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad
Bench in Writ Petition No.2364 of 2016 (Coram: S.V.
Gangapurwala, & A.I.S. Chima, JJ.) in the matter of Arun
Babasaheb Dake & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
which has relied upon the judgment in the case of Babasaheb
Apparao Akat & Ors. (supra) where it is held that the scheme of
Act of 1963 does not provide for axiomatic appointment of
administrator upon expiry of the term.
7. The learned Addl. GP Mr.Samant for the Respondents
contended that by virtue of Section 15A of the APMC Act, they
are entitled to appoint an Administrator as the term of the existing
Managing Committee of Respondent No.5 had come to an end. It
was contended that the power to appoint an Administrator stems
WP-11553-25.doc
from Section 15A of the APMC Act, 1963.
8. Mr. Samant, learned Addl.GP for the Respondent - State
further states that an Administrator was rightly appointed. He
contended that Section 15A provides for appointment of an
Administrator after normal or extended term of office of members
expires. He contends that the Petitioners have got no right to
continue after the expiry of tenure. He further states that it is the
discretion of the State to grant extension for a period of 6 months
from time to time in exceptional circumstances. He further
contended that there was no right vested in the Petitioners to get
the term extended. In support of his submissions, he relied upon
the following judgments: -
i) Writ Petition no. 4332 of 2013 by this
Hon'ble Court at the Nagpur Bench delivered on
17.10.2013 in the case of Uddhav Shalikram Geete vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
ii) Writ Petition No. 4480 of 2013 by this
Hon'ble Court at the Nagpur Bench delivered on
17.10.2013 in the case of Sanjay Sadashiv Patil vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors.
iii) Writ Petition No. 3855 of 2016 by this
Hon'ble Court at the Nagpur Bench delivered on
15.07.2016 in the case of Ganuji Devaji There & Anr.
WP-11553-25.doc
vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors .
iv) Writ Petition No. 1283 of 2015 by this
Hon'ble Court at the Nagpur Bench delivered on
20.04.2015 in the case of Ravindra Mahadeorao Kashti
& Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
9. Having heard the parties at length, it is clear that the
first meeting of the Management Committee of Respondent No.5
was held on 31st August, 2020 and as per the provisions of Section
14 of APMC Act, the term of the Managing Committee would be
in force for a period of five years, which would expire on 31 st
August, 2025.
10. Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce
Marketing Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 provides for
election and term of office of the members. Section 14(1) and (3)
are the provisions which are relevant to decide the subject matter.
Section 14(1) and 14(3) read as under:
14. Election and term of office of members- (1) Subject to
the provisions of sub-section (2), the members shall be
elected in the manner prescribed by rules. Such rules may
provide also for the determination of constituencies, the
preparation and maintenance of the list of voters, persons
qualified to be elected, disqualifications for being chosen
as and for being a member, the right to vote, the payment
WP-11553-25.doc
of deposit and for its forfeiture, the determination of
election disputes and all matters ancillary thereto
including provision regarding election expenses.
(2) ...
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the
members of a Market Committee (not being a
Committee constituted for the first time) shall hold
office for a period of five years, and the members of a
Committee constituted for the first time shall hold
office for a period of two years:
Provided that, the Market Committee constituted for
the first time, may be replaced by the Government and
the new Committee so replaced shall hold office for
the remainder of the period.
Provided further that, where the general election of
members of a Committee could not be held for reason
beyond the control of the Committee before expiry of
the term of office of its members as aforesaid, the State
Government may, by order in the Official Gazette,
extend from time to time, the term of office of any
such Committee, so however, that the period for
which the term of office is so extended shall not
exceed the period of one year in the aggregate.
Section 15 provides for commencement of Term of
Office of member. Section 15 reads as under:
15. Commencement of term of office of members- (1)
The term of office of members of a Market Committee
shall be deemed to commence on the date of the first
meeting of the Market Committee at which business is
transacted: 13[Provided that, a person who is a
member by virtue of his being a representative, or
WP-11553-25.doc
holding office, or holding licence belonging to any of
the categories of members referred to in sub-section
(1) or (1A) of section 13, shall hold office as such
member so long only as he continues to be
representatives or to hold such office or such licence
and on his ceasing to be such representative or holding
such office or licence he shall cease to be such member
and he shall be deemed to have vacated his office.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section, the date
of the first meeting of the Market Committee at which
business is transacted shall be the date of the meeting
called under sub-section (2) of section 22 for the
election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.]
(2) ...
Section 15A was inserted by 10 Act of 1984. It provides
for Appointment of Administrator after normal or extended term
of office of members expires.
Section 15A(1) is the relevant provision with which the
present matter is governed. Section 15A (1) reads as under:
15A. Provision for appointment of administrator after
normal or extended term of office of members expires-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(3) of section 15 or any other provisions of this Act,
where the term of office of two years, five years or as
the case may be, the extended term of office, if any,
under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 14 of
the member of any Market Committee has expired,
the Director or any officer not below the rank of the
District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
authorised by him shall, by order in writing direct
that--
WP-11553-25.doc
(a) all members of the Committee shall, as from the date
specified in the order, cease to hold and vacate their
offices as members or otherwise; and
(b) the Administrator or the Board of Administrators of
not more than seven members appointed by the
Director or such authorised officer shall manage the
affairs of the Committee], during the period from the
date specified in the order upto the day on which the
first meeting of the reconstituted Committee after the
election is held, where there is a quorum (hereinafter
in this section referred as "the said period") such
election shall be held within a period of six months
from the date the Administrator or the Board of
Administrators assumes office:
Provided that this period of six months may be
extended, from time to time by the State Government,
in exceptional circumstances, to a period not
exceeding one year in the aggregate, by notification in
the Official Gazette, for reasons, which shall be stated
in the notification.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in
clause (b) of sub-section (1), as it stood before the
commencement of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Produce Marketing (Regulation) (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 1985 (Mah. XXV of 1985), where the
Administrator has been appointed to manage the
affairs of any Committee but election to such
Committee has not been held within a period of one
year as required under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the
period of holding election to such Committee shall be
extended and shall be deemed always to have been
extended upto and inclusive of, the 31st day of March
1986.
(2) During the said period, all the powers and
duties of the Committee and its various authorities
WP-11553-25.doc
under this Act and the rules and bye-laws made
thereunder or any other law for the time being in force
shall be exercised and performed by the Administrator
or the Board of Administrators.
(3) The Administrator or the Board of
Administrators may delegate any of his powers and
duties to any officer for the time being serving under
him or under the Committee.
(4) The Administrator or the members of the Board
of Administrators shall receive such remuneration
from the Market Fund as the Director or authorised
officer may, from time to time, by general or special
order, determine.
Section 14 of the APMC Act also provides that where
general election of the Board of the Committee could not be held
for the reasons beyond the control of the Committee before
expiry of term of office of its member, the State Government may
by order in the Official Gazette extend from time to time, the term
of office of any such Committee. However, that the period for
which the term of office so extended shall not exceed the period
of one year in the aggregate.
11. Section 15(3) of the APMC Act also provides that the
term of office of the outgoing members shall be deemed to extend
WP-11553-25.doc
to, and expire with, the date immediately preceding the date of
such first meeting. Section 15A was inserted by the Maharashtra
Act 2010 of 84. This provision however provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or Section 15(3)
of the APMC Act or any other provisions where the term of office
of two years, five years or the case may be has expired the Director
or any Officer not below the rank of the District Deputy Registrar
of the Co-operative Societies shall by an order in writing direct
vacation of the offices of the committee members, the appointment
of an administrator or the member of Administrator. In the
present case, the Respondents have resorted to the provisions of
Section 15A of the APMC Act without considering that the
Petitioners were continuously following with the Respondents for
holding fresh election; and that they had deposited the Demand
Draft of Rs.15,00,000/- to enable Respondent Nos.1 and 4 to hold
elections. The Respondents are clearly overlooking the proviso to
sub-Section 3 of Section 14 of the APMC Act so also sub-Section 3
of Section 15. Although it is true that there are powers vested in
Respondent Nos.1 and 4 to appoint an Administrator or the
member of an Arbitrator, it does mean that such powers can be
WP-11553-25.doc
exercised as per the whims and caprice of the Respondents.
In the present case that the application / proposal of the
Petitioners was pending before Respondent Nos.1 and 4. Further
this is not a case where there were allegations of any inactions /
mistake on the part of the Petitioner. It cannot be lost sight of the
fact that there is a democratically elected body of the Respondent
No.5 which cannot be dis-lodged by an executive fiat. Even
otherwise as suggested in the judgment of Babasaheb Apparao Akat
& Ors. (supra), the Respondents could have appointed the
erstwhile Managing Committee of Respondent No.5, in the
alternative. The Respondents however wanted to dislodge the
democratically elected body.
12. After the arguments were advanced, learned counsel for
the Petitioners informed that on 29 th August 2025, Mr. Vikas Rasal
had appointed himself as the Administrator and that he has also
taken charge on 1st September, 2025. According to us, this is very
disturbing feature of the case in as much as the tenure of the
Committee was to come to an end on 31 st August, 2025 and even
WP-11553-25.doc
their application for extension was pending and not decided.
Further the order of appointment was passed by Mr. Vikas Rasal,
Director of Marketing on 29th August, 2025 and he himself took
charge on 1st September 2025. The tearing hurry in which the
Administrator was appointed and that too in the teeth of the
application for extension preferred by the Petitioners well within
the time of expiry of the term i.e. on 7 th August 2025 speaks
volume. Even otherwise, Mr. Vikas Rasal could have appointed the
Petitioners as the Board of Administrators as laid down in the
judgment of Babasaheb Apparao Akat & Ors. (supra). Instead, he
has chosen to usurp the management of the APMC and foist
himself as an Administrator of the APMC.
13. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners Babasaheb Apparao Akat & Ors. (supra) squarely
governs the present case. In that case there was a proposal by the
Petitioners therein for extension to act as members of the APMC.
The Respondents, without considering the proposal straightaway
proceeded to appoint an Administrator to takeover the affairs of
the Committee. The Hon'ble Court held that the period of the
WP-11553-25.doc
Committee could be extended or in the alternative the Committee
members could have been appointed as the Board of the
Administrators to look after the affairs of the Committee.
14. The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
for the Petitioners in the case of Arun Babasaheb Dake & Ors. vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ petition no. 2364 of
2016 decided on 10.03.2016 by this Hon'ble Court at Aurangabad
Bench also takes the same view.
15. Learned counsel for the Respondents sought to
distinguish the same by relying upon the judgment in the case of
Uddhav Shalikram Geete (supra). The facts of the said judgment
are not similar to that in the present case. In fact in the said
judgment, this Court observed in Para 8 which reads as under:
"...The Petitioners in the case of Babasaheb had
submitted the proposal for extension of the term of the
APMC on the ground that the elections could not be
held on time and in the petition before the Court, a
prayer was made that the State of Maharashtra and the
concerned authority be directed to decide the
proposals of the petitioners for grant of extension to
the petitioners to act as the members of the APMC till
the conclusion of election. In present case, as observed
WP-11553-25.doc
by us, the petitioner has not prayed for such directions
to the respondents for extension of the term of the
members of the APMC. ..."
Thus, the said judgment is not applicable. This Court,
has in fact, upheld the view of this Court in Babasaheb Apparao
Akat & Ors. (supra).
16. Second judgment Sanjay Sadashiv Patil (supra) relied
upon by the learned counsel for the Respondents in Writ Petition
No. 4480 of 2013 also can be distinguished from the facts of the
case in as much as in the case of Sanjay Sadashiv Patil (supra) the
Petitioners therein had not sought extension of the tenure of
members of the APMC and the Petitioners had not made any
grievances in that regard. This Court felt that once there was no
application for extension of tenure and that tenure of the
Committee had come to an end there was no reason as to why the
Administrator should not be appointed. In the case in hand, there
was a proposal submitted by the Petitioners well before expiry of
their tenure. Hence the judgment in case of Sanjay Sadashiv Patil
(supra) is also not applicable to the facts in the present case.
WP-11553-25.doc
17. The next judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
for the Respondents in case of Ganuji Devaji There & Anr. (supra)
in Writ Petition No. 3855 of 2016 also arises in different set of
facts. Attention of the learned Division Bench was not drawn to
the earlier judgment of the Division bench in the matter of
Babasaheb Apparao Akat & Ors. (supra) and hence, the judgment
in Ganuji Devaji There & Anr. (supra), is clearly distinguishable.
18. The last judgment relied by the learned Additional GP
for the Respondent-State in the matter of Ravindra Mahadeorao
Kashti & Ors. (supra) in Writ Petition No. 1283 of 2015 is also
based on different facts from the facts of the present case. In that
case, even the extended period of one year was over and therefore,
the Court came to the conclusion that permitting the same
Committee to continue after the extended period of one year
would frustrate the object of provisions of Section 15A of the Act.
19. For the reasons set out in foregoing paragraphs, we feel
that the action on the part of Respondents is thus not only illegal
but also mala-fide and deserves to be struck down. Resultantly, we
WP-11553-25.doc
pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The Respondents are directed to forthwith take steps to
hold elections of Respondent No.5.
(iii) Respondent No.6 - Administrator shall forthwith hand
over charge to the erstwhile elected body of Respondent No.5.
(iv) The Committee of the Respondent No.5 shall not take
any policy decision till the next duly elected body of Respondent
No.5 takes charge of the Respondent No.5.
20. Rule is accordingly made absolute on the aforesaid
terms. No order as to costs.
21. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the Interim
Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
WP-11553-25.doc
22. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
23. At this stage, after the order was pronounced, learned
A.G.P seeks stay of the order. Considering the findings arrived at,
request for stay is rejected.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
