Bombay High Court Quashes Co-option of Member in APMC for Violation of Section 14 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 — Failure to Provide Notice and Opportunity to Object Renders Co-option Invalid.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 18
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Sadashiv Pandurang Patil and Audumbar Gorakh More, were members of the Karmala Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). They challenged the co-option of Mahaveer Bhairu Talekar as a member of the APMC in a meeting held on 26th October 2018. The petitioners contended that the co-option was done without complying with Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, which requires that before co-opting a member, the Market Committee must give notice to the Director of Marketing and provide him an opportunity to object. The respondents argued that the procedure was followed. The court examined the provisions of Section 14 and found that the record did not show any notice having been given to the Director of Marketing prior to the co-option. The court held that the requirement of notice and opportunity to object is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the co-option invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the co-option of Mahaveer Bhairu Talekar and directed that the matter be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Agricultural Marketing - Co-option of Members - Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - The co-option of a member to the Market Committee without prior notice to the Director of Marketing and without providing an opportunity for him to object is invalid. The court held that the procedure under Section 14 is mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the co-option. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the co-option of Mahaveer Bhairu Talekar as a member of the Karmala Agricultural Produce Market Committee in its meeting dated 26th October 2018 was valid without complying with Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed the co-option of Mahaveer Bhairu Talekar as a member of the Karmala Agricultural Produce Market Committee and directed that the matter be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Co-option of members to Agricultural Produce Market Committee must comply with Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
  • 1963
  • which requires notice to the Director of Marketing and opportunity for him to object
  • failure to do so renders the co-option invalid.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (06) 69

Writ Petition No.14387 of 2018

2019-06-26

Indrajit Mahanty, A.M. Badar

Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye alongwith Mr. Milind Prabhune for Petitioners, Mr. R.P. Kadam, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5, Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni i/by DD & Abhijit Associates for Respondent No.6

Sadashiv Pandurang Patil and Audumbar Gorakh More

The State of Maharashtra and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition challenging co-option of a member to Agricultural Produce Market Committee

Remedy Sought

Quashing of co-option of Mahaveer Bhairu Talekar as member of Karmala APMC

Filing Reason

Co-option done without complying with Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963

Issues

Whether the co-option of Mahaveer Bhairu Talekar as a member of Karmala APMC was valid without complying with Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that no notice was given to the Director of Marketing before co-option, violating Section 14. Respondents contended that the procedure was followed.

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 to give notice to the Director of Marketing and provide an opportunity to object before co-opting a member is mandatory. Non-compliance renders the co-option invalid.

Judgment Excerpts

This Writ Petition has been filed by Sadashiv Pandurang Patil, challenging the co-opting of one Mahaveer Bhairu Talekar as a member of the Karmala Agricultural Produce Market Committee in its meeting dated 26th October, 2018, without complying with Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the co-option of Mahaveer Bhairu Talekar. The court reserved judgment on 14th June 2019 and pronounced it on 26th June 2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963: Section 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Charges Against Accused in SC/ST Atrocities Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence. Court holds that mere presence at the scene without active participation or common intention does not attract Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Co-option of Member in APMC for Violation of Section 14 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 — Failure to Provide Notice and Opportunity to Object Renders Co-option Invalid.