Case Note & Summary
The case involved a challenge to the order dated 24.12.2013 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal, under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, superseding the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ghatanji, and appointing an administrator. The writ petition was filed by the Chairman and members of the Board of Directors of the Market Committee. Respondent no.4, Prashant Dhande, had filed complaints alleging mismanagement, loss, failure to maintain proper accounts, and exploitation of farmers by traders in connivance with the Market Committee. An enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Registrar, which found substance in the complaints. A show cause notice was issued, and a three-member committee appointed under Section 40(b) of the Act conducted an enquiry and submitted a report that found no serious illegality. The Market Committee members submitted replies, but the petitioners contended that the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board, while giving its opinion as required under the proviso to Section 45(1), did not consider their joint reply and the Section 40(b) committee report. Consequently, they argued there was no effective consultation, rendering the supersession order invalid. The respondents maintained that all material was forwarded and considered, and the Board's approval was properly obtained. The central legal issue before the High Court was whether there was prior effective consultation between the District Deputy Registrar and the State Marketing Board. The judgment, as extracted, does not include the final decision; the text ends with the court identifying the moot issue of consultation.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Supersession of Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Effective Consultation - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 45(1) - The petition challenged the supersession order dated 24.12.2013 on the ground that the District Deputy Registrar failed to have effective consultation with the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board as required by Section 45(1) because the Board did not consider the petitioners' joint reply and the report of the Section 40(b) enquiry committee. The court framed the central issue as whether there was previous consultation as mandated. (Paras 2, 9, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether there was prior effective consultation between the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal and the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board as required under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963 before passing the order of supersession of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ghatanji.
Law Points
- Supersession of Market Committee requires prior consultation with State Marketing Board under Section 45(1) of Maharashtra APMC Act
- consultation must be effective and based on consideration of all relevant materials including replies of members and enquiry reports
- failure to consider material submissions may vitiate the consultation and the resultant order.
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (08) 135
Writ Petition No. 6918 of 2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, P.R. Bora, JJ.
A.M. Ghare, B.P. Maldhure, H.D. Dangre
Abhishek Shankarrao Thakare and 10 others
The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to the order of supersession of an Agricultural Produce Market Committee and appointment of an administrator under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra APMC Act, 1963.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 24.12.2013 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the order was passed without effective prior consultation with the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board as required by Section 45(1) of the Act, because the Board did not consider their joint reply and the Section 40(b) enquiry report.
Previous Decisions
The District Deputy Registrar had passed the order of supersession on 24.12.2013 after receiving an opinion from the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board.
Issues
Whether there was prior effective consultation between the District Deputy Registrar and the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board as required under Section 45(1) of the APMC Act, 1963?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Board's opinion was not based on consideration of their joint reply to the show cause notice and the report of the Section 40(b) enquiry committee, and therefore no effective consultation took place.
Respondents contended that sufficient opportunity was given, all material was forwarded, and the Board after considering the entire material approved the proposed action; mere non-mention of petitioners' names does not imply non-consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
The order dated 24.12.2013, passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal, under Section 45(1) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963 ... superseding the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ghatanji ... and appointing an administrator ... is under challenge in the present petition. (Para 2)
After having considered the pleadings of the parties, it is quite clear that whether there was any previous consultation between respondent nos. 1 and 2 before passing the impugned order is the moot issue involved in the present petition. (Para 12)
Procedural History
Complaints filed by respondent no.4 on 18.11.2012 and 21.11.2012 alleging irregularities and exploitation of farmers. District Deputy Registrar directed enquiry by Assistant Registrar; report submitted on 21.03.2013 finding substance. Explanation sought from Market Committee on 02.05.2013; Chairman responded on 16.05.2013. Show cause notice issued on 20.06.2013. On 25.07.2013, a Three Member Committee appointed under Section 40(b) to enquire; report submitted on 23.08.2013 finding no serious illegality. Members submitted replies. Registrar forwarded material to Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board for opinion. Board passed resolution on 20.12.2013 and sent opinion on 23.12.2013. On 24.12.2013, the Registrar passed the impugned order superseding the Market Committee and appointing an administrator. Petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963: 45(1), 40(b), 31, 34
