Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Namdev Bhagwanrao Ghule, challenged the notification dated 01.12.2015 issued by the State of Maharashtra bifurcating the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (A.P.M.C.) Jintur and constituting a new A.P.M.C. Bori. The petitioner contended that A.P.M.C. Jintur was established in 1961 and covered 170 villages, with village Bori being only 13-15 km away. Earlier, a similar bifurcation notification dated 01.03.2004 was set aside by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1822 of 2004 on 26.02.2015. The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was a repeat attempt without complying with Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, which requires consultation with the Market Committee and consideration of objections. The respondents argued that since the Market Committee was superseded under Section 15 of the Act on 21.02.2015, the Administrator was consulted. The Court analyzed Section 6 and found that the procedure was not followed: the Market Committee was not consulted, and objections were not considered. The Court held that supersession does not dispense with the requirement of consulting the Market Committee itself. The impugned notification was quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to follow the procedure under Section 6 if they wished to bifurcate the market area.
Headnote
A) Agricultural Marketing - Bifurcation of Market Committee - Section 6 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 - Validity of Notification - The impugned notification bifurcating A.P.M.C. Jintur and constituting A.P.M.C. Bori was challenged for non-compliance with Section 6. The Court held that the procedure under Section 6, including consultation with the Market Committee and consideration of objections, was not followed. The notification was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-8) B) Agricultural Marketing - Supersession of Market Committee - Section 15 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 - Effect on Bifurcation - The Court held that supersession of the Market Committee under Section 15 does not dispense with the requirement of consultation under Section 6. The Administrator cannot be equated with the Market Committee for the purpose of consultation. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned notification bifurcating A.P.M.C. Jintur and constituting A.P.M.C. Bori is valid under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, and whether the procedure prescribed therein was followed.
Final Decision
The impugned notification dated 01.12.2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to follow the procedure under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 if they wish to bifurcate the market area.
Law Points
- Bifurcation of market committee requires compliance with Section 6 of the Act
- including consultation with the Market Committee and consideration of objections
- Non-compliance renders notification invalid
- Supersession of committee does not dispense with statutory requirements
