Case Note & Summary
The writ petitions arose from orders of removal of elected members of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Ghatanji, under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. Petitioners Abhishek Shankarrao Thakre and Ashish Suresh Lonkar were members of the APMC. On 18/12/2023, farmers brought produce for auction at APMC Ghatanji, but traders insisted on purchasing below the Minimum Support Price (MSP). Petitioners, along with Akbar Tanwar, went to APMC to negotiate with traders, but traders left the auction. Farmers then called a strike and Rasta Roko. A meeting before the Tahsildar directed action against traders. The Secretary of APMC blamed petitioners and Tanwar, leading to a police complaint by Respondent No.4. On 03/01/2024, Chairman issued show cause notice; on 27/01/2024, Market Committee passed Resolution No.6 to initiate Section 17 proceedings against petitioners while proceedings against Tanwar were adjourned sine die. On 02/02/2024, Respondents 4 and 5 filed application under Section 17 before District Deputy Registrar, who issued show cause notice on 01/04/2024. Petitioners filed revision before Divisional Joint Registrar, who stayed proceedings, and later on 25/07/2024 relegated the matter back with direction to grant opportunity of hearing. On 22/08/2024, District Deputy Registrar passed removal order, which petitioners challenged in present writ petitions. Petitioners argued that removal lacked positive evidence and reasoned order, and that their actions were in furtherance of statutory duty to ensure MSP. Respondents contended that petitioners misused official position, provoked strike, and failed to perform duty of conciliation under Section 29; that opportunity of hearing was given. The provided judgment text ends during submission of respondent and does not include the court's analysis or final decision.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Removal of Elected Member - Grounds for Removal - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 17 - Order dated 22/08/2024 removed petitioner from membership of APMC for alleged misconduct of instigating farmers' strike; petitioner challenged that removal lacked positive evidence and reasons; court to assess whether mere advocacy for MSP amounts to misconduct under Section 17 (Paras 3, 8-9).
B) Statutory Interpretation - Duties of Market Committee Members - Minimum Support Price - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Sections 17, 29 - Petitioner argued that Act and Rules entrust members with duty to ensure farmers receive MSP; respondent argued that legal duty is to resolve disputes through conciliation under Section 29 and petitioner failed to do so; court to determine whether petitioner's actions fell within statutory duties or constituted misconduct (Paras 9, 11-13).
C) Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Administrative Order - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 17 - Revision authority directed opportunity of hearing; petitioner submitted police report and statements exonerating him; impugned order allegedly passed without assigning reasons; court to examine whether natural justice was complied with and whether reasons were required (Paras 7-9, 12-13).
D) Precedents - Standard of Judicial Review - Removal of Elected Representatives - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 17 - Petitioner relied on Sharda Kailash Mittal, Ravi Yashwant Bhoir and Baburao Vishwvanath Mathpati to argue that removal of elected representative requires strong reasons; no final holding available in provided text (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 22/08/2024 removing the petitioner from membership of APMC under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 was valid and whether the petitioner's actions to ensure Minimum Support Price constituted misconduct.
Law Points
- Removal of elected member under Section 17 of APMC Act requires proof of misconduct
- Members have statutory duty to ensure Minimum Support Price for farmers
- Section 29 provides conciliation mechanism for disputes
- Natural justice requires reasoned order and opportunity
- Judicial review of administrative orders requires adequate reasons
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (04) 186
Writ Petition No. 5048 of 2024 and Writ Petition No. 5052 of 2024
Sunil Manohar, Y.N. Sambre, D.V. Chauhan, D. Charlewar, A.M. Ghare, C.S. Kaptan, R.V. Gahilot
Abhishek Shankarrao Thakre and Ashish Suresh Lonkar
State of Maharashtra, Divisional Joint Registrar, District Deputy Registrar, Agricultural Produce Market Committee Ghatanji, Nitin Ashokrao Kothari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging order of removal from membership of Agricultural Produce Market Committee under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing and setting aside of order dated 22/08/2024 passed by District Deputy Registrar removing them from membership of APMC Ghatanji.
Filing Reason
Alleged misconduct of provoking farmers to strike and obstructing auction sale, leading to removal proceedings; petitioners claimed they were acting to ensure Minimum Support Price for farmers.
Previous Decisions
District Deputy Registrar (Respondent No.3) passed removal order dated 22/08/2024; prior revision petition before Divisional Joint Registrar was disposed on 25/07/2024 relegating matter back with direction for hearing; earlier stay and writ petition refused interference.
Issues
Whether the removal order under Section 17 was valid in the absence of positive evidence and reasons.
Whether queries/actions by petitioner to ensure MSP to farmers constitute misconduct under the Act.
Whether the order violates principles of natural justice and relevant provisions.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that removal lacked positive and reliable evidence connecting them to instigating farmers' strike and that the Act and Rules entrust members with duty to ensure MSP; impugned order did not consider these provisions.
Petitioners relied on Sharda Kailash Mittal, Ravi Yashwant Bhoir and Baburao Vishwvanath Mathpati regarding removal of elected representatives.
Respondents argued that petitioner had no lawful obligation to protect farmers, provoked strike, misused official position as Director and Chairman, and failed to perform duty of conciliation under Section 29; opportunity of hearing was given before recommendation.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 22/08/2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3 – District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Yavatmal under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 ... thereby removing the Petitioner from the post of Member of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee ... for the alleged misconduct.
On 18/12/2023, several farmers had brought their produce for auction sale at the APMC, Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal, however, the traders were insisting on purchasing the produce at a price much less than the Minimum Support Price ...
On 27/01/2024, in the Monthly General Meeting, the Market Committee passed a Resolution bearing No. 6 against the Petitioner and Shri Lonkar to initiate Proceedings under Section 17 of the said Act, whereas the Proceedings against Shri Tanwar were adjourned sine die...
On 22/08/2024, though several legal and valid arguments were made by him, the Respondent No. 3, without assigning any reasons as to how the misconduct is proved against the Petitioner and as to why such serious and extreme action of removal of membership shall be allowed against the Petitioner, removed the Petitioner from being a Member of the APMC, Ghatanji.
Procedural History
On 18/12/2023, incident occurred at APMC Ghatanji involving farmers, traders, MSP, and strike. On 03/01/2024, Chairman issued show cause notice. On 27/01/2024, Market Committee passed Resolution No.6 to initiate Section 17 proceedings against petitioners. On 02/02/2024, application under Section 17 filed before District Deputy Registrar. On 01/04/2024, District Deputy Registrar issued show cause notice. On 02/07/2024, revision filed before Divisional Joint Registrar, who stayed proceedings. On 09/07/2024, writ petition by Respondent No.4 refused by High Court with direction to pass order within two weeks. On 25/07/2024, Divisional Joint Registrar disposed revision relegating matter back with direction for hearing. On 22/08/2024, District Deputy Registrar passed removal order. Petitioners then filed present writ petitions.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963: Section 17, Section 29
