Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shantaram Sonawane, an employee of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Jalgaon, was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal before the Director of Marketing under Section 52B of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, which was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the Director's order. The respondent APMC raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of a second appeal to the State Government under Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967. The petitioner argued that his appeal was under Section 52B and not under Rule 104, and that the penalty imposed was under Rule 103, not Rule 102. The court examined the rules and found that Rule 102 lists all penalties, including dismissal, and Rule 103 prescribes the procedure for imposing those penalties. Rule 104 provides for an appeal against an order imposing any penalty under Rule 102. The court held that the petitioner's dismissal was a penalty under Rule 102(VII), and the appeal against it lies under Rule 104, not Section 52B. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Alternative Remedy - Writ Petition Maintainability - Rule 104 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 - The court considered whether a writ petition against an order of the Director of Marketing imposing penalty of dismissal is maintainable when a second appeal to the State Government is available under Rule 104. The court held that Rule 103 prescribes procedure for imposing penalties listed in Rule 102, and the appeal against such order lies under Rule 104, not under Section 52B of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner must exhaust the alternative remedy of second appeal before approaching the High Court. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of the Director of Marketing is maintainable when an alternative remedy of second appeal to the State Government under Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 is available.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy of second appeal under Rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Rule 104 appeal
- Rule 102 penalties
- Rule 103 procedure
- Section 52B Act 1963
- Writ petition maintainability
