Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are agriculturists and office-bearers of cooperative societies that are members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Nagpur, challenged an order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the State Government under Section 14(3) and (3A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The order postponed the elections of the APMC. The petitioners contended that the order was passed mechanically without recording any proper opinion as mandated by the statute, and that the grounds prescribed in the law were not evaluated. They also argued that the fact that elections of other local authorities like Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Zilla Parishad were being held simultaneously could not justify postponing APMC elections, especially since such simultaneous elections had been conducted in 2012 without issue. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the impugned order did not contain any evaluation of the statutory grounds or reasons in support thereof, indicating non-application of mind by the State Government. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to proceed with the election process in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Postponement of Elections - Section 14(3) and (3A) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Mandatory Recording of Opinion - The court examined whether the State Government's order postponing APMC elections was valid. The court held that the order must contain a proper recording of opinion and reasons as mandated by the statute. The impugned order was found to be mechanical and lacking evaluation of statutory grounds, thus vitiated by non-application of mind. (Paras 2-3)
B) Cooperative Law - Simultaneous Elections - Section 14(3) and (3A) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Relevance of Other Elections - The court noted that the fact that elections of other local authorities were being held simultaneously was not a sufficient ground to postpone APMC elections, especially when such simultaneous elections had been conducted in 2012. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 10.01.2017 postponing elections of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) under Section 14(3) and (3A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 was valid, given the alleged lack of proper recording of opinion and non-application of mind.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 10.01.2017, and directed the respondents to proceed with the election process in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Non-application of mind
- statutory interpretation
- mandatory recording of opinion
- postponement of elections
- Section 14(3) and (3A) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 146
Writ Petition No. 585 of 2017
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Mrs. Swapna Joshi
Shri A.A. Naik for petitioners, Shri P. Tembhare (AGP) for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4, Shri S.W. Sambre for respondent No. 5
Bhagwan Sampatrao Ghodmare and Vasantrao Marotrao Landge
The State of Maharashtra, The Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board, The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur, The Collector, Nagpur, and The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the State Government postponing elections of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC).
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 10.01.2017 and direction to proceed with the election process.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the impugned order was passed mechanically without proper recording of opinion and reasons as required under Section 14(3) and (3A) of the Act.
Issues
Whether the order dated 10.01.2017 postponing APMC elections was valid under Section 14(3) and (3A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.
Whether the State Government applied its mind properly while passing the impugned order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed mechanically without recording any proper opinion as mandated by the statute, and that the grounds prescribed in the law were not evaluated.
Petitioners also argued that the fact that elections of other local authorities were being held simultaneously could not be a sufficient ground to postpone APMC elections, especially since such simultaneous elections were conducted in 2012.
Ratio Decidendi
The order under Section 14(3) and (3A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 must contain a proper recording of opinion and reasons. Non-application of mind and mechanical acceptance of a proposal vitiates the order.
Judgment Excerpts
The order dated 10.01.2017 passed under Section 14(3) and (3A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, is questioned on the ground that without recording any opinion properly, as mandated by those provisions, mechanically proposal put up by the subordinates has been accepted and elections are postponed.
Non application of mind by respondent No. 1 is apparent because the grounds prescribed in the statute and the reasons expected in support thereof, do not find any evaluation in the impugned communication.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 585 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the State Government. The court heard the matter finally with consent of parties and delivered judgment on 09.03.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963: Section 14(3), Section 14(3A)
