Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a director of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Pathri, challenged an order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which cancelled two resolutions passed by the APMC on 24.01.2025. The first resolution authorized the petitioner to operate the bank account, and the second handed over charge of the Secretary to another person. The Registrar found both resolutions violative of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and the Rules, particularly Rule 108 regarding signatories for financial transactions and the requirement of prior sanction for changing the Secretary's charge. The petitioner argued that Rule 108 is directory and that the APMC had the power to make temporary arrangements due to the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman. The court, however, held that Rule 108 is mandatory and that only the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary can sign cheques; any deviation requires specific authorization. The court also found that the resolution regarding the Secretary's charge was passed without prior sanction and on subjects not on the agenda. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Registrar's order and the direction for an enquiry under Section 40 of the Act.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Resolution Validity - Rule 108 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Sale-Purchase (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 - The court considered whether a resolution authorizing a director other than the Chairman, Vice Chairman, or Secretary to operate the bank account is valid. Held that Rule 108 is mandatory and only the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary can sign cheques; any deviation requires specific authorization under Rule 108(2). The resolution was thus invalid (Paras 7, 8).
B) Cooperative Law - Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Secretary's Charge - Sections 19, 24 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - The court examined whether the APMC could hand over charge of the Secretary without prior sanction of higher authorities. Held that such action is against the rules and requires prior approval; the resolution was invalid (Paras 7, 10).
C) Cooperative Law - Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Enquiry - Section 40 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - The court upheld the Registrar's direction for an enquiry into the allegations of misappropriation and irregularities. Held that an enquiry is necessary to investigate the charges (Paras 7, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the resolutions passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) on 24.01.2025, authorizing the petitioner to operate the bank account and handing over charge of the Secretary, are valid under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 18.03.2025, cancelling the resolutions and directing an enquiry, is upheld.
Law Points
- Rule 108 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Sale-Purchase (Development and Regulation) Rules
- 1967 is mandatory
- not directory
- Resolution delegating bank account operation to a director other than Chairman/Vice Chairman/Secretary is invalid
- Resolution regarding Secretary's charge without prior sanction of higher authorities is invalid
- Enquiry under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963 is warranted
- Doctrine of necessity cannot override statutory rules.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (3) 180
Writ Petition No.2721 of 2025
Mr. N. B. Khandare h/f. Mr. D. J. Choudhary for petitioner; Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi for Respondent No.5; Mr. N. R. Pawade for Respondent No.6; Mr. A. A. Khande h/f. Mr. G. V. Sukale for Respondent No.7; Mr. P. D. Patil AGP for Respondent/State
Eknath S/o Ramchandra Ghandge
The State of Maharashtra through Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, cancelling two resolutions passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) and directing an enquiry.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing and setting aside of the Registrar's order dated 18.03.2025.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the Registrar's order which cancelled resolutions authorizing him to operate the bank account and handing over charge of the Secretary, and directed an enquiry.
Previous Decisions
The Divisional Joint Registrar allowed the application of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, cancelling the resolutions and directing an enquiry under Section 40 of the Act.
Issues
Whether the resolution authorizing the petitioner to operate the bank account is valid under Rule 108 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Sale-Purchase (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967.
Whether the resolution handing over charge of the Secretary is valid without prior sanction of higher authorities.
Whether the Registrar's direction for an enquiry under Section 40 of the Act is justified.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Rule 108 is directory, not mandatory, and the APMC has power to make temporary arrangements in the absence of Chairman and Vice Chairman; the doctrine of necessity applies.
Respondent No.5 argued that the resolutions are against the rules; only Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary can sign cheques; Secretary's charge cannot be changed without prior sanction.
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 108 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Sale-Purchase (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 is mandatory and requires that financial transactions be signed by the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary; any deviation requires specific authorization. The APMC cannot delegate such powers to another director without following the rules. The resolution regarding the Secretary's charge is invalid as it was passed without prior sanction and on subjects not on the agenda. The doctrine of necessity cannot override statutory rules.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Divisional Joint Registrar considered the rules and the arguments and came to the conclusion that, both the resolutions are against the rules.
It is mainly held that, in view of Rule 108(2), the financial transactions can be done only by the Chairman, in his absence by the Deputy Chairman and the Secretary.
The resolution is thus against Rule 108 of the rules.
Procedural History
The petitioner and respondent nos. 5 and 7 to 15 are directors of APMC. Respondent No.7 was elected Chairman but disqualified on 14.10.2024; the disqualification was set aside on appeal on 31.12.2024 with a remand. Respondent No.7 resumed charge on 16.01.2025 and called a meeting on 24.01.2025, where resolutions were passed authorizing the petitioner to operate the bank account and handing over charge of the Secretary. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed an application before the Divisional Joint Registrar, who allowed it on 18.03.2025, cancelling the resolutions and directing an enquiry. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963: Sections 19, 24, 40, 45
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Sale-Purchase (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967: Rules 33, 36, 43, 92(2), 93, 100(5), 108
