Case Note & Summary
This writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, arose out of a dispute concerning the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Pusad. Nine elected members of the APMC, who constituted 50 per cent of the 18-member Executive Committee, tendered their resignations on 8 August 2024 to the Chairman. The petitioners alleged that the respondents selectively accepted the resignations of only two members while keeping the remaining seven pending, and meanwhile proceeded to co-opt two new members and take major policy decisions. They contended that such selective action was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Section 16 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, which governs resignation of members. The petitioners sought a direction to accept all resignations, declare the selective acceptance bad in law, and quash the co-option and the subsequent notification dated 17 September 2024 issued by the Deputy District Registrar. After the resignations were submitted on 8 August 2024, the District Deputy Registrar called for a report from the Secretary of APMC, who informed on 10 August 2024 that resignations had been received and would be processed. On 12 August 2024, the Deputy District Registrar directed the APMC to decide on the resignations as per law. On 16 August 2024, the Chairman issued a notice for a general meeting on 27 August 2024, which was adjourned to 30 August 2024 due to lack of quorum. The petitioners learnt through a newspaper report that only the resignations of petitioner Nos. 7 and 9 had been accepted. On 4 September 2024, they made a complaint to the District Deputy Registrar with a copy to the Director of Marketing. On 6 September 2024, the APMC and Chairman issued a notice for a meeting on 13 September 2024. The respondents claimed that on 13 September 2024 a resolution was passed co-opting two new members, and on 17 September 2024 the Deputy District Registrar issued a notification notifying those co-opted members. The petitioners amended the petition to challenge this notification. The petitioners argued that all nine resignations were voluntary and should have been accepted together under Section 16 of the Act, but the respondents had selectively accepted two, delayed action on the others, denied meeting records, and unlawfully co-opted members without valid vacancy. They alleged mala fide intent and procedural violations, relying on Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co. and Moti Ram v. Param Dev. The respondents contended that one petitioner had already been disqualified and subsequently resigned prior to the main resignations, that after the election for Chairman held on 8 August 2024, a meeting discussed the resignations and found seven of the nine petitioners willing to withdraw while two refused and were accepted. They further claimed that because the resignation letters appeared identical, authenticity was sought by communication dated 6 September 2024, but the remaining petitioners refused to appear before the Chairman, so their resignations were not accepted. On 16 October 2024, those remaining resignations were accepted, rendering the petition infructuous. Respondents relied on Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Dilip Bhosale and Iftekharullah v. State of Maharashtra. The court heard the matter at length, perused the record, and reserved judgment on 12 August 2025. The judgment was pronounced on 9 September 2025. The provided judgment excerpt includes the parties' contentions and the beginning of the court's consideration of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, but does not contain the final operative order or ratio decidendi. Therefore, the final decision and reasoning cannot be extracted from the available text.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Selective Acceptance of Resignations - Section 16 Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Petitioners challenged the non-acceptance of resignations of seven out of nine APMC members while accepting two; they contended all nine resignations were voluntary and should be accepted together; respondents argued that seven petitioners were willing to withdraw resignations and authenticity of identical letters was unconfirmed; the court examined the legality of selective acceptance but final conclusion not available in the provided excerpt (Paras 2-9). B) Co-operative Societies - Co-option of Members - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017, Rule 10(2)(ii) - Petitioners alleged unauthorized co-option of two new members without valid vacancy after accepting only two resignations; respondents contended co-option was done after valid acceptance of two resignations and due procedure followed; Notification dated 17/09/2024 issued by Deputy District Registrar notifying co-opted members was challenged by amendment (Paras 6-13). C) Statutory Interpretation - Resignation of Members - Effect of Identity of Resignation Letters - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 16 - Respondent No.4 claimed resignation letters appeared identical and authenticity was sought but petitioners refused to confirm, hence their resignations were not accepted; the court had to consider whether an authenticity requirement justifies selective treatment of resignations tendered on the same date (Paras 10-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether selective acceptance of resignations of APMC members and subsequent co-option of two members were illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 16 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963; whether the challenged Notification dated 17/09/2024 should be quashed; whether the writ petition became infructuous after acceptance of remaining resignations on 16/10/2024.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided text; final operative order not extracted.
Law Points
- Resignation of members under Section 16 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963
- co-option of members requires valid vacancy
- majority and quorum requirements for Market Committee
- compliance with statutory procedure for acceptance of resignations
- discretionary power to accept or reject resignations cannot be exercised arbitrarily
- writ jurisdiction to challenge administrative action
