Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a dispute concerning the amalgamation of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Motala with APMC, Malkapur. Petitioners, connected with APMC Motala and one elected member of APMC Malkapur, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the Minister of State for Cooperation, Marketing and Textile under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The petitioners contended that the Minister lacked jurisdiction to pass the amalgamation order. Earlier, APMC Motala had resolved on 19.08.2005 to request amalgamation, APMC Malkapur approved it on 10.10.2005, and the Maharashtra Agricultural Federation endorsed the proposal on 04.10.2007. After initial directions by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3994/2008, the District Deputy Registrar passed an amalgamation order on 17.01.2009, which was gazetted on 22.01.2009. Respondent no.6 filed a revision under Section 43, and the Minister initially granted ex parte status quo ante. Petitioners challenged those interim orders in Writ Petition No. 628/2009, raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court, on 26.03.2009, observed that a Single Judge had jurisdiction over quasi-judicial orders under the Appellate Side Rules. After the Minister passed the final order on 07.05.2009, Writ Petition No. 628/2009 was held infructuous, leading to the filing of the present petition. The court issued rule and heard the matter finally. Respondents 4 to 6 raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition should be placed before the Division Bench because Chapter XVII Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 did not include the APMC Act, and that petitioner no.6, not being a party to the original proceedings before the Minister, could not invoke the Single Judge’s jurisdiction as an aggrieved person. They argued that a challenge to a quasi-judicial order required a lis between contesting parties. The court heard the preliminary objection first, with respondent no.6’s counsel pressing for a decision on that point. No final decision on the preliminary objection or the merits of the jurisdictional challenge is recorded in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the Minister’s order under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 should be heard by a Single Judge or a Division Bench under Chapter XVII Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960; and whether petitioner no.6, not a party to the proceedings before the Minister, can invoke the jurisdiction of a Single Judge.
Law Points
- quasi-judicial order
- lis
- aggrieved person
- jurisdiction of single judge
- locus standi
- maintainability of writ petition
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 269
Writ Petition No. 2612 of 2009
S.V. Manohar for Petitioners; Bharti Dangre, Addl. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3; P.C. Madkholkar for Respondent Nos. 4 & 6; G.G. Mishra for Respondent No.5; U.S. Dastane for Respondent Nos. 20 to 22
Balkrishna s/o Shankar Nafde & Ors.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the Minister’s order dated 07.05.2009 under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, with a preliminary objection raised regarding maintainability before a Single Judge.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order of the Minister and to restrain respondents 6-25 from taking major financial or policy decisions, asserting that the Minister lacked jurisdiction to pass the amalgamation order.
Filing Reason
The Minister passed a final order in revision under Section 43 directing amalgamation of APMC Motala and APMC Malkapur, which petitioners alleged was without jurisdiction. Earlier writ petition No. 628/2009 challenging interim orders became infructuous after the final order, necessitating the present petition.
Previous Decisions
In Writ Petition No. 3994/2008, the court directed action on amalgamation proposal. Subsequently, Misc. Civil Application No. 1204/2008 was filed to recall directions. On 14.10.2008, the court observed that the Government could proceed under Section 44. The District Deputy Registrar passed amalgamation order on 17.01.2009. In Writ Petition No. 628/2009, the Division Bench on 26.03.2009 held that a Single Judge had jurisdiction over quasi-judicial orders. That petition was held infructuous on 08.06.2009.
Issues
Whether the writ petition should be heard by a Single Judge or a Division Bench under Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960?
Whether petitioner no.6, not a party to proceedings before the Minister, has locus standi to file the petition before a Single Judge?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that respondent no.2 Minister had no jurisdiction to pass order under Section 43 of the APMC Act.
Respondents raised preliminary objection that the matter should be before Division Bench as Chapter XVII Rule 18 of Appellate Side Rules does not include APMC Act, and petitioner no.6 was not a party to the original proceedings, thus not an aggrieved person to invoke Single Judge jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
Their contention is, respondent no.2 did not have any such jurisdiction.
In paragraph no.10 of its order dated 26.03.2009, the Division Bench found that, in view of the provisions of SubRule [3] of Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 the learned Single Judge had jurisdiction, if writ was against quasi judicial order.
He argues that as petitioners are strangers to the proceedings of amalgamation, they can not approach Single Judge.
Procedural History
APMC Motala passed resolution on 19.08.2005 requesting amalgamation; APMC Malkapur resolved on 10.10.2005; on 04.10.2007 Maharashtra Agricultural Federation accepted proposal; Petitioners filed WP No. 3994/2008 for directions; on 18.09.2008 court directed action; Misc. Civil Application filed to recall directions; on 14.10.2008 court noted government's power under Section 44; on 17.01.2009 District Deputy Registrar passed amalgamation order published on 22.01.2009; Administrator took charge on 22.01.2009; respondent no.6 filed Revision 5/2009 on 27.01.2009; Minister passed ex parte status quo order on 04.02.2009; Petitioners filed WP No. 628/2009 challenging interim orders; Division Bench on 26.03.2009 held single judge has jurisdiction over quasi-judicial orders; on 05.05.2009 WP 628/2009 closed for orders; Minister passed final order on 07.05.2009; WP 628/2009 held infructuous on 08.06.2009; present WP No. 2612/2009 filed thereafter; on 25.06.2009 interim relief granted restraining major decisions; matter heard on preliminary objection first.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963: 43, 44
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
- Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960: Chapter XVII Rule 18, SubRule [3] of Rule 18
