Case Note & Summary
The matter before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay concerned a writ petition and a public interest litigation challenging Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024, which modified an existing Direct Benefit Transfer subsidy scheme for agricultural inputs. The petitioners included a manufacturers' association, an agro-industries company, and three agriculturists. The State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (MAIDCL), and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited (MSPCL) were the principal respondents. The dispute arose because the impugned resolution deleted five items—battery operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldihide pesticide, and cotton storage bags—from Schedule-A of Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016. Under the 2016 policy, subsidy amounts were to be transferred directly to farmers under DBT, enabling them to purchase from local traders. The 2024 resolution instead directed procurement and supply of these items through MAIDCL and MSPCL, effectively removing direct cash benefits. Petitioners contended that the State Government failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Government Resolution dated 12 April 2018, which required a committee to consider deletion of any item from the DBT list. They further alleged that the new procurement method resulted in higher costs to the public exchequer and benefited large contractors rather than farmers and local businesses. The PIL also challenged tender processes implemented for procurement of the five items, alleging exorbitant rates. In the writ petition, prayers challenging the tender process and work orders were later deleted, leaving only the challenge to the Government Resolution itself. The court recorded interim orders dated 7 August 2024, directing disclosure of contractors and staying payments; this was subsequently modified on 6 May 2025 and 15 July 2025 to permit payments to cotton bag contractors. The PIL was transferred from the Nagpur Bench to the Principal Seat and renumbered. The extracted judgment text does not include the court's final analysis or operative decision; it ends with the submissions of counsel. Therefore, the final holding, ratio decidendi, and direction are not available in the provided portion. The matter stood before the court for adjudication on the validity of the Government Resolution and consequential tenders.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Policy Change - Mandatory Procedure - Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 - Petitioners challenged deletion of five items from Schedule-A of GR dated 5 December 2016 without following the procedure prescribed by GR dated 12 April 2018; State's action allegedly violated its own prescribed procedure. Held: Court required to examine validity of the impugned GR and whether procedural safeguards were followed (Paras 10-11).
B) Direct Benefit Transfer - Subsidy Scheme - Direct Payment vs Procurement through PSUs - Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 and 12 March 2024 - Petitioners contended DBT scheme was more beneficial to farmers and local traders; State's switch to procurement through MAIDCL and MSPCL favored large contractors and caused loss to exchequer. Held: Petitioners sought quashing of GR and restoration of direct cash transfer for five items (Paras 4-8, 10-11).
C) Public Interest Litigation - Tender Process - Judicial Review of Procurement - Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 and consequential tenders - PIL alleged procurement of items at exorbitant rates through impugned tenders; interim orders directed disclosure of contractors and controlled payments. Held: Court would assess legality of tender processes and consequential actions after considering objections (Paras 8-9).
D) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Standing and Maintainability - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 (implied) - Manufacturer association and farmers filed writ and PIL; State may contest locus standi, but petitions entertainable as public interest. Held: Not yet decided in extracted text (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024, which deleted five items from Schedule-A of GR dated 5 December 2016 and directed procurement through MAIDCL/MSPCL instead of DBT, is valid; whether the procedure prescribed by GR dated 12 April 2018 was followed; whether consequential tender processes are liable to be quashed.
Law Points
- Government Resolution must follow prescribed procedure for deletion of items from DBT list
- Direct Benefit Transfer scheme intended to benefit farmers and local traders
- State action in procurement through agencies subject to judicial review for arbitrariness
- public exchequer cannot be burdened by procurement at higher rates
- writ jurisdiction can examine policy changes for procedural compliance
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 131
Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 with Interim Application (L) No. 17079 of 2025; Public Interest Litigation No. 25 of 2025 with Interim Application (L) No. 1240 of 2025 and Interim Application (L) No. 1337 of 2025
Alok Aradhe, CJ & Sandeep V. Marne, J
Nikhil Sakhardande, Pralhad Paranjape, Druti Datar, Joel Carlos, Rupesh Geete, Priya Dangat, V.R. Dhond, P.H. Kantharia, Milind More, Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Vinod Joshi, Saurav Rajurkar, Bhushan Chandrakant Joshi, Sunanda M. Konkar, A. V. Anturkar, Manoj Harit, Niket Harit, Pooja Harit
Agri Sprayers T.I.M Association & Anr.; Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.; Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (MAIDCL); Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited (MSPCL)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition and public interest litigation challenging a Government Resolution modifying a Direct Benefit Transfer subsidy scheme for agricultural inputs.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing/setting aside Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 to the extent it deleted five items from Schedule-A of GR dated 5 December 2016 and directed procurement through MAIDCL and MSPCL instead of direct cash transfer to farmers; also sought quashing of consequential tender processes.
Filing Reason
Alleged violation of procedure prescribed by GR dated 12 April 2018 for deletion of items from DBT list; procurement at higher rates through public agencies causing loss to exchequer; DBT scheme more beneficial to farmers and local traders.
Previous Decisions
Interim order dated 7 August 2024 directed disclosure of contractors and stayed disbursement; modified on 6 May 2025 allowing 50% payment to cotton bag contractors subject to outcome; further modified on 15 July 2025 permitting full payment to cotton bag contractors. PIL transferred from Nagpur Bench to Principal Seat on 24 March 2025.
Issues
Whether Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 is valid despite deleting five items from Schedule-A of GR dated 5 December 2016 without following the procedure under GR dated 12 April 2018.
Whether the State Government could replace Direct Benefit Transfer with procurement through MAIDCL and MSPCL, allegedly causing higher cost and benefiting large contractors.
Whether the consequential tender processes for procurement of the five items are lawful and should be quashed.
Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the Government Resolution and tender processes.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Sakhardande for Writ Petitioners submitted that the impugned GR dated 12 March 2024 was contrary to the earlier GR dated 5 December 2016 and that the prescribed procedure under GR dated 12 April 2018 for deletion of items was not followed.
He argued that the DBT scheme was more beneficial to farmers as battery operated spray pumps could be procured at cheaper rates, and that one declared objective of the 2016 GR was to give impetus to local businessmen/traders.
He contended that the new system of procurement through MAIDCL and MSPCL was aimed solely at favoring large contractors and that the petitioners were affected persons entitled to maintain the petition.
Mr. Carlos for PIL Petitioners adopted these submissions and added that the impugned scheme resulted in procurement of products at much higher rates, thereby bleeding the public exchequer.
Judgment Excerpts
These petitions challenge Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 which contemplates procurement and supply of five items (fertilizers, pesticides and agriculture equipment) to the farmers under special program for enhancement of productivity.
Petitioners insist that the subsidy for procurement of the said five items must be paid in cash to the farmers so as to enable them to purchase the same from local traders rather than procuring and supplying them through agencies like MAIDCL, MSPC, etc.
By Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016, the State Government formulated a policy of directly transferring the subsidy amounts into the accounts of the beneficiaries for purchase of the listed items rather than procuring and supplying them.
That the DBT scheme was more beneficial to the farmers where the battery operated spray pumps could be procured at a much cheaper rates.
Procedural History
Public Interest Litigation initially filed before Nagpur Bench as PIL No. 34 of 2024 challenging GR dated 12 March 2024 and consequential tender processes. Interim order dated 7 August 2024 directed MAIDCL and MSPC to disclose contractors and stayed disbursement of payments. PIL amended by impleading contractors awarded tenders. PIL transferred to Principal Seat on 24 March 2025 and renumbered as PIL No. 25 of 2025. Order dated 6 May 2025 modified interim order to allow 50% payment to cotton bag contractors subject to outcome. Order dated 15 July 2025 further modified to permit full payment to cotton bag contractors. Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 filed by manufacturers' association and company challenging GR and tender process; prayers (b), (c), (d) challenging tender process were later deleted, restricting challenge to prayer (a) against GR only. Interim Application (L) No. 17079 of 2025 filed for amendment in WP; Interim Applications (L) No. 1240 and 1337 of 2025 filed for vacation of interim order in PIL.
