Bombay High Court
Harish Eknathrao More And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra,Thr. ... on 26 August, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 903.wp.4543.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 4543 OF 2025
Shri Harish Eknathrao More and others
.Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr M. G. Bhangde, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr Aadarsh Baheti, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr N. S. Rao, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3/State
Mr K. J. Tople, Advocate for respondent No. 4
Mr M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for intervener
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 26, 2025.
Heard.
2. In the present writ petition, as we have observed in order dated 14.08.2025 the challenge is raised to the validity of Section 35-A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the APMC Act') and prayer is made to strike down the said provision as the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. While pressing for interim relief, on last date, Mr M. G. Bhangade, learned senior Advocate pointed out that petitioner No. 13 was appointed as 'Secretary' and though he is working as Secretary, another Secretary came to be appointed who is the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society under Section 35-A of the APMC Act and the petitioner No. 2 903.wp.4543.2025.odt 13 is directed to work under newly appointed Secretary. It was pointed out that there is no such provision to direct the regularly appointed Secretary to work under the newly appointed Secretary under Section 35-A.
4. Considering the said arguments this Court on 14.08.2025 instead of granting interim relief granted an opportunity to the State to explain and justify the impugned order directing the petitioner No. 13 to work under the newly appointed Secretary.
5. This Court while granting time has observed in para 6 as follows:
"6. It is expected that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 shall file reply by next date explaining the authority and powers under the APMC Act, to issue such direction to the petitioner No.13 to work under the Secretary appointed under Section 35-A of the APMC Act and whether any notice was issued prior to appointment of the Secretary under Section 35-A of the APMC Act."
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 25.08.2025 and without filing any reply, in compliance with para 6 of the order dated 14.08.2025 again time was sought. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for today. Today again no reply is filed justifying the appointment of two Secretaries, one under Section 35, who was regularly appointed and another who is now appointed under Section 35-A of the APMC Act.
3 903.wp.4543.2025.odt
7. Mr M. G. Bhangade, learned senior Advocate pointed out that the powers and functions of the Secretary are given under Rule 106 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1967'). Further, it is pointed out that there is also statutory duty to signed the cheques alongwith Chairman of the APMC under Rule 108 of the Rules of 1967.
8. He further submits that as the petitioner No. 13 is holding the post of Secretary, asking him to work under the Secretary appointed under Section 35-A of APMC Act, amounts to curtailing the statutory powers of the petitioner No. 13 which will cause great prejudice to him. He, therefore, submits that, the impugned order asking the petitioner No. 13 to work under the newly appointed Secretary may be stayed.
9. On the other hand Mr N. S. Rao, learned AGP vehemently opposed the prayer for interim relief on the ground that the inquiry was conducted against the petitioner No. 13 and there are serious irregularities committed by petitioner No. 13. He submits that language of Section 35-A opens with non obstante clause i.e. notwithstanding anything contained in Section 35, the State Government may appoint any officer, not below the rank of Co-operative Officer, Grad- II, from the Co-operation Department, as the Secretary of any Market Committee. He, therefore, submits that since the 4 903.wp.4543.2025.odt Assistant Registrar has given the charge of Secretary, the petitioner No. 13 has to work under the Assistant Registrar and there is no illegality committed by directing the petitioner No. 13 to work under the newly appointed Secretary.
10. Learned counsel for the intervener reiterated the submissions of learned AGP and submits that petitioner has not produced the report of inquiry on record which shows the reason for appointment of Secretary under Section 35-A of the APMC Act.
11. We do not find favour with the arguments made by the learned AGP for the reasons that there is no dispute that petitioner No. 13 is regularly appointed secretary and till date he is holding the post of Secretary. There is no provision under the act to appoint two secretaries to exercise the powers under Rule 106 and also the powers given to the Secretary under Rule 108. In the impugned order there is no mention of any inquiry or any irregularity and illegality committed by petitioner No. 13 as a 'Secretary'.
12. In that view of the matter if the petitioner No. 13 is holding the post of Secretary, he has every right to exercise statutory powers under Rules 106 and 108 of APMC Rules. The same cannot be curtailed directly or indirectly by adopting a mode namely appointing another Secretary under Section 35-A of the APMC Act and directing the regularly 5 903.wp.4543.2025.odt appointed Secretary to work under the newly appointed Secretary.
13. In that view of the matter we hereby stay the impugned order to the extent it directs the petitioner No.13 to work under the newly appointed Secretary i.e. the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies/respondent No.5 and further it is made clear that the statutory powers given under the Act and the Rules cannot be taken away from the petitioner No. 13 unless due procedure of law is followed.
14. Place this matter after four weeks to enable the State to file reply.
15. Mr Rao, learned AGP for the state submits that since the challenge is raised to the validity of Section 35-A of APMC Act the notice to learned Advocate General is necessary.
16. Accordingly, we issue notice to the learned Advocate General of State of Maharashtra, returnable on 23.09.2025.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 26/08/2025 20:09:34