Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging an order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Osmanabad, under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The petitioners were the Chairman, Vice Chairman and members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Murum, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. They had been elected on 19.02.2016 for a term of five years. The State Government extended their term by six months on 17.03.2021 due to the pandemic. An intervenor, who was an agriculturist, lodged complaints about mismanagement by the committee. The District Deputy Registrar issued a show cause notice on 13.05.2019 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee. Even before the inquiry was completed, a second show cause notice was issued on 09.09.2019. Some petitioners submitted explanations. After hearing, the District Deputy Registrar forwarded a proposal to the Maharashtra State Marketing Board for consultation under Section 44 of the Act. The Board conveyed approval by communication dated 11.05.2021. The impugned order recorded that several charges were proved, including failure to prevent sale below Minimum Support Price, failure to prevent recovery of prohibited trade allowances, failure to initiate action against erring agents, failure to take disciplinary action against the Secretary, and failure to implement a Government Loan Scheme. The court held that it could not undertake factual scrutiny in writ jurisdiction and could only examine legality and procedure. It found that the petitioners' admissions regarding sale below MSP and unauthorized action by the Secretary, coupled with prevalence of trade allowance recovery, rendered the conclusions unassailable. The court rejected the argument of disproportionality. It then considered the statutory interpretation of Section 40(1) of the Act, specifically whether non-compliance with a direction under Section 40(1)(e) required a prior inquiry under Section 40(1)(b). The petitioners relied on Santosh v. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, while the respondents argued that the clauses were independent. The provided judgment text ends before the final operative order, but the analysis strongly indicated that the court was inclined to dismiss the petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Writ Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, Article 226; Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 45(1) - The High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-evaluate disputed facts while examining an order of supersession. The court held that it may intervene only for illegality or irregularity in the decision-making process, not for insufficiency of factual proof. It therefore rejected the petitioner's submission challenging the charges on merits. (Paras 6-7)
B) Administrative Law - Supersession of Market Committee - Grounds for Supersession - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Sections 45(1), 32(d), 32(a), 8, 39, 40(1)(e); Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, Rules 94(d)(2), 94(d)(3) - The petitioner committee admitted that agricultural produce was sold below Minimum Support Price and that the Secretary had initiated action against agents without power. The court held that these admissions, along with finding of prevalent recovery of trade allowance, rendered the conclusion of proved charges unassailable and justified supersession under Section 45(1). (Paras 4,7-8)
C) Statutory Interpretation - Control Powers of Director - Independence of Section 40(1) Clauses - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 40(1)(b), Section 40(1)(e); Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, Rule 117 - The petitioners argued that non-compliance with a direction under Section 40(1)(e) could not be a ground without a prior inquiry under Section 40(1)(b). The court analyzed the text of Section 40(1) and observed that it lists various powers of the Director, and the exercise of one power does not necessarily depend on another. The provided judgment text ends before the final conclusion on this issue. (Paras 9-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can reappreciate factual findings in a writ petition challenging an order of supersession under Section 45(1); whether the impugned order is vitiated for lack of inquiry under Section 40(1)(b) read with Rule 117 before relying on non-compliance of direction under Section 40(1)(e); whether the action of supersession is disproportionate to the proved charges
Final Decision
Not mentioned (provided judgment text truncated before operative order)
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to examining legality and procedure
- not factual reappreciation
- Section 45(1) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963 permits supersession for proved serious charges
- admissions by committee of sale below MSP and unauthorized action by Secretary substantiate charges
- Section 40(1) clauses are independent powers not preconditioned on each other
- proportionality of supersession upheld given serious charges
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (09) 18
WRIT PETITION NO.8091 OF 2021 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7981 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8091 OF 2021
Ms. Pradnya S. Talekar i/b. Mr. L.C. Patil, Mr. D.R. Kale, Mr. A.G. Talhar, Mr. P.S. Dighe, Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, Mr. B.B Bhise h/f. Mr. N.R. Pawade
Bapurao S/o Madhavrao Patil, Basavraj S/o Mailarai Karbhari, Basavraj S/o Annarao Patil, Govind S/o Vitthal Patil, Mahadev S/o Basavanappa Tengale, Dagadu S/o Sadhu Gaikwad, Dhanraj S/o Govindrao Jadhav, Shridevi Manik Birajdar, Mangaltai W/o Revan Lamjane, Saybanna S/o Shivayya Hirmukhe, Vijaykumar S/o Sadashiv Sonkatle, Shyamsundar S/o Shivbasappa Torkade, Pramod S/o Vishwanath Muralikar, Chandba @ Chandpayasha Shukatali Shaikh, Dhanraj S/o Kashinath Mangrule, Ayub Ibrahim Masuldar, Chandrakant Shidaram Gaikwad
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Co-operation Marketing & Textiles Department, The Maharashtra State Marketing Board through its Executive Director, The District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies Osmanabad, The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies Omerga, Mr. P.L. Shahapurkar [Administrator] The Additional Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies Omerga, The Agricultural Produce Market Committee Murum
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by District Deputy Registrar under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, superseding the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Murum.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners, who were Chairman, Vice Chairman and members of the Market Committee, sought quashing of the impugned supersession order and reinstatement of the committee.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' committee was superseded based on charges of mismanagement, including failure to prevent sale below Minimum Support Price, failure to prevent recovery of prohibited trade allowances, failure to initiate action against erring agents, failure to take disciplinary action against the Secretary, and failure to implement a Government Loan Scheme.
Previous Decisions
Show cause notice dated 13.05.2019; constitution of three-member inquiry committee; second show cause notice dated 09.09.2019; explanation tendered by some petitioners; hearing concluded; proposal forwarded to respondent No.2 Board for consultation under Section 44; Board approval communicated on 11.05.2021; impugned order passed on 26.07.2021.
Issues
Whether the High Court can reappreciate factual findings while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the impugned order under Section 45(1) is vitiated due to absence of prior inquiry under Section 40(1)(b) read with Rule 117 before relying on non-compliance of direction under Section 40(1)(e)?
Whether the action of supersession is disproportionate to the proved charges?
Whether Section 40(1)(b) and Section 40(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 are independent powers?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that none of the charges were actually proved and hence Board consent and the conclusion of proof were erroneous.
Petitioners contended that in the absence of inquiry under Section 40(1)(b) read with Rule 117, non-compliance of direction under Section 40(1)(e) could not be a ground for invoking Section 45(1).
Petitioners relied on Santosh v. District Deputy Registrar, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 159 and Maharashtra Land Development Corporation v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 15 SCC 616 to argue that inquiry was mandatory and action was disproportionate.
Respondents and intervenor argued that Section 40(1)(b) and Section 40(1)(e) are independent of each other; non-compliance of direction under Section 40(1)(e) alone is sufficient to invoke Section 45(1); the decision in Santosh is fact-specific.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, it cannot sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate disputed facts; it can examine only legality and procedural regularity of the decision-making process. The court found that the petitioners' admissions regarding sale below MSP and unauthorized action by the Secretary, along with prevalence of recovery of trade allowances, rendered the conclusion of proved charges unassailable and justified supersession under Section 45(1). The court also analyzed Section 40(1) and observed that its clauses listed independent powers of the Director, but the final interpretation was not included in the provided excerpt.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are questioning legality of the order passed by the respondent No.3 District Deputy Registrar under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 dated 26.07.2021 thereby superseding the Market Committee at Murum, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad of which the petitioners were the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members.
This Court cannot sit in Appeal and undertake a scrutiny in respect of illegality or otherwise of the impugned order based on the facts.
The fact of sale of agricultural produce below MSP was admitted albeit it was sought to be explained by contending that there was no sufficient infrastructure available for gradation of agricultural produce and consequentially an agricultural produce which is of non FAQ quality was required to be traded below MSP.
Procedural History
The petitioners were elected as Chairman, Vice Chairman and members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Murum on 19.02.2016 for a term of 5 years. The State Government extended the term by six months on 17.03.2021 under Section 14(3) due to the pandemic. The intervenor, an agriculturist, lodged complaints about mismanagement. The District Deputy Registrar issued a show cause notice on 13.05.2019 and constituted a three-member inquiry committee. Before inquiry completion, a second show cause notice was issued on 09.09.2019. Some petitioners submitted explanations. After hearing, the District Deputy Registrar forwarded a proposal to the Maharashtra State Marketing Board for consultation under Section 44. The Board conveyed approval on 11.05.2021. The District Deputy Registrar then passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 under Section 45(1) directing suspension of the committee.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963: 45(1), 14(3), 39A, 44, 40(1), 40(1)(b), 40(1)(e), 32(d), 32(a), 8, 39
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules: Rule 94(d)(2), Rule 94(d)(3), Rule 117
