Bombay High Court
Shri Shivram S/O Sonbaji Girhipunje vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 September, 2009
Author: D.D. Sinha
Bench: D.D. Sinha, Prasanna B. Varale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4298 OF 2008.
1. Shri Shivram s/o Sonbaji Girhipunje,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Murmadi (Lakhani), Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
2. Shri Vinayak Somaji Burde,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Jevanala, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
3. Shri Angaraj s/o Arjun Samrit,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Pidkepar, Tahsil Sakoli,
District Bhandara.
4. Shri Keshav s/o Sitaram Mandwadkar,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Sangade, Tahsil Sakoli,
District Bhandara.
5. Shri Ravindra s/o Tejprasad Bisen,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Satadhwada, Tahsil Sakoli,
District Bhandara.
6. Shri Bhagwat s/o Khushal Nagalwade,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Shivani Mogra, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 :::
2
7. Sou. Sugandhabai w/o Dhaniram Bangalkar,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Barshi, Tahsil Sakoli,
District Bhandara.
8. Sou. Mandabai w/o Gopichand Nahokar,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Kanhalgaon, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
9. Shri Chandrashekhar s/o Shriram Tichkule,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Kesalwada (Wagh), Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
10. Shri Digamber s/o Sadashiv Shendurkar,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Regepar (Kotha), Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
11. Shri Padmakar s/o Laxman Bawankar,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Shipani, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
12. Shri Harshawardhan s/o Shivram Tagade,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Pimpalgaon, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
13. Shri Khiroj s/o Dulichand Gaydhane,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Lakhani, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 :::
3
14. Shri Ghanshyam s/o Damodhar Khedikar,
aged Adult, Elected Director of the
A.P.M.C., Lakhani, r/o At and Post
Lakhani, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary of Co-operation.
Ginning and Textiles Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 1.
2. The Director of Marketing,
State of Maharashtra, Pune.
3. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Bhandara,
Tahsil Bhandara, District Bhandara.
4. The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Lakhani, through its
Secretary, Lakhani, Tahsil Lakhani,
District Bhandara.
5. The Assistant Registrar Co-operative
Societies, Lakhani, Tahsil Lakhani, District
Bhandara.
6. The Assistant Registrar Co-operative
Societies, Sakoli, Tahsil Sakoli, District
Bhandara. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1
to 3.
Shri Subhash Paliwal, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
Shri C.S. Kaptan, Advocate for the caveator.
....
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 :::
4
CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND
PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per D.D. Sinha, J.)
Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri N.W. Sambre, the learned GP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies (at present discharging their duties as Administrators), Shri Subhash Paliwal, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 and Shri C.S. Kaptan, the learned Counsel for the caveator.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri N.W. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, Shri Subhash Paliwal, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.4 and Shri C.S. Kaptan, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the caveator.
3. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by the respondent No.3- ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 5 District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhandara under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 whereby APMC, Lakhani was divided into two APMCs i.e. APMC, Lakhani and APMC, Sakoli.
4. Shri A.M. Ghare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 23.01.2001, the respondent No.3 issued notification under Section 4 of the APMC Act whereby APMC of Lakhni is carved out and since then APMC Lakhni is in operation.
On 28.12.2003, the term of the office of Board of Directors of APMC, Lakhni was expired. However, the respondent No.1/State continued the said body by granting extension to the said Board from time to time on one reason or the other. On 08.04.2008, the Member of Legislative Assembly of the State of Maharashtra, Sakoli Constituency has given letter to the State Marketing Board for bifurcation of respondent No.4-AMPC. On 17.06.2008, a meeting of the Executive Committee of the State Marketing Board was held and this aspect was discussed and it was noticed that there was no such proposal received by the Board regarding the bifurcation of the respondent No.4-APMC. The office of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 6 respondent Nos.2 and 3 was requested to forward the proposal of bifurcation, if they so desire, to the office of the Board.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 22.07.2008, the respondent No.3 published election programme of APMC, Lakhni, and declared the election of the Board of Directors. Voting of the said election was scheduled on 21.09.2008. On 26.06.2008, the respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1/State that considering the income and expenditure of APMC, Lakhni, the proposal of bifurcation was neither feasible nor financially viable and election of the Board of Directors of AMPC, Lakhni be held.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 16.08.2008, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lakhni, submitted the report to the respondent No.3 and gave details about the sale and purchase and other financial aspects of APMC, Lakhni and also gave his opinion that the bifurcation of respondent No.4-APMC was not financially viable. It is contended that on 28.08.2008, the respondent No.3-DDR, Bhandara sent a communication whereby ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 7 the respondent No.2 was informed that bifurcation of respondent No.4-APMC, Lakhni was not financially viable. Similarly, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur, vide communication dated 26.08.2008 also informed respondent No.2 that bifurcation of respondent No.4-APMC was not financially viable proposition.
7. Shri Ghare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 28.08.2008, the Ex Chairman of respondent No.4-APMC and one of the Ex Directors, namely, Shri Vasant Shivankar and Shri Jagannath Rahagadale respectively filed Writ Petition No. 3755 of 2008 before this Court, challenging the publication of election programme of Board of Directors of respondent No.4-APMC and prayed for stay of the election programme and/for appointment of Administrator till the process of bifurcation is completed. It is contended that on 05.09.2008, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed their reply in which it was categorically stated that the Director of Marketing by communication dated 26.06.2008 has informed the government that in view of the report submitted by DDR, it will not be feasible to bifurcate APMC, Lakhni as the expenses would be more than ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 8 the income. In view of this position, at present there was no question of bifurcation of APMC, Lakhni and, therefore, holding of election of APMC, Lakhni after expiration of term did not violate any provisions of law.
8. Shri Ghare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 12.09.2008, this Court was misinformed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the said petition, that the State Government was likely to take a decision in respect of the bifurcation of respondent No.4-APMC by 15.09.2008. In the affidavit filed by the State, in fact, the statement was made otherwise. On the basis of the mis-statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in the said petition, on 12.09.2008, this Court has passed the following order :-
"Heard Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv. for petitioners and Shri Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that the tenure of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Lakhni was over in the year 2003 only, however, from time to time extension is granted by the State Government in view of likely ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 9 bifurcation of APMC, Lakhni. It is submitted that by virtue of the impugned communication dated 21.07.2008 there is likelihood of holding elections by APMC, Lakhni and the decision regarding bifurcation of APMC is likely to be taken by the State Government on 15.09.2008.
In the meantime, we direct the Assistant Government Pleader to seek instructions in this regard and make a statement on the next date of hearing what is the status of process of bifurcation and within what time, the said process of would be complete.
S.O. to 16.09.2008."
9. The learned Counsel Shri Ghare for the petitioners has submitted that on 15.09.2008, the State Marketing Board passed a resolution No.5 informing DDR, Bhandara that he may take a decision of bifurcation by following due process prescribed under the Act, Rules, though it is mentioned in the minutes of meeting of the Board that as per the reports of DDR, the proposal of bifurcation will not be economically viable. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 16.09.2008, the respondent No.1/State sent a communication by fax to respondent No.3 that no decision of bifurcation was pending at ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 10 their level and it was informed that in view of delegation of powers, the decision of bifurcation was required to be taken at his end by exercising powers under Section 44 of the APMC Act. It is contended that the said communication clearly demonstrates that no decision at the level of the State Government regarding bifurcation of respondent No.4-APMC was pending with the government at that stage, nor any decision in this regard was taken on 15.09.2008.
10. Shri A.M. Ghare, the learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 16.09.2008 when the Writ Petition No. 3755 of 2008 was listed for hearing before this Court, once again the learned AGP for the State Government had made a factually incorrect statement, contrary to the documentary evidence, before this Court that the decision by the Committee constituted under Section 44 of the APMC Act has been taken to bifurcate respondent No.4-APMC. It is contended that the power to take a decision regarding bifurcation under Section 44 of APMC Act is delegated to DDR by the State Government and, therefore, the competent authority to take such decision is only DDR and nobody else. It is contended that this Court on 16th September, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 11 2008 passed the following order in Writ Petition No. 3577 of 2008 :-
"Heard Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv. For petitioners and Mr. N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Pursuant to our order dated 12.09.2008, instructions were sought by the Government Pleader and on the basis thereof, he has made a statement that the committee which was constituted by State Government u/s 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 has taken a decision on 15.09.2008 regarding bifurcation of APMC, Lakhni into two Market Committees. Same is placed on record today. Learned Government Pleader has further pointed out to us that the State Government has already delegated powers u/s 44 of the Act to the District Deputy Registrar to take steps regarding bifurcation of APMC, Lakhni.
Mr. Samarth, Adv. For petitioners have submitted that the election programme of present APMC has already been declared, however, since decision has already been taken to bifurcate the APMC, Lakhni in that event, the election programme may be stayed and after bifurcation, it will be open for the Market Committee to hold elections in accordance ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 12 with law.
In the backdrop of the above referred facts, we direct the Government Pleader to seek instructions that though the period of Board of Directors of APMC, Lakhni is already over and the election programme is also declared, however, in view of the fact the decision has been taken to bifurcate APMC, Lakhni into two, whether the State Government is considering appointing Administrator till the process of bifurcation is complete since the elections will have to be held by APMC in any case after bifurcation.
Place the matter on 19.09.2008."
11. The learned Counsel Shri Ghare for the petitioners contended that this Court vide order dated 19th September, 2008 disposed of the Writ Petition No. 3755 of 2008. The said order reads thus :-
"Heard Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv. For petitioners and Mr. Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that so far as the election of APMC, Lakhni is concerned, the election programme is already declared and the voting is scheduled to be held on 21st September, 2008. In that view of the matter, we do not want to show any ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 13 indulgence at this stage. Hence, the petition is disposed of.
So far as the issue of bifurcation of the APMC is concerned, observations are already made by us in the earlier order passed by us dt. 12.09.2003."
12. It is contended that after the disposal of the said writ petition, the election of Board of Directors of APMC was held on 21.09.2008 and the results of the said election were declared on 22.09.2008 and the present petitioners were declared to be successful candidates. Annexure-A to this petition is the declaration of the said election.
13. The learned Counsel Shri Ghare for the petitioners has submitted that the DDR in spite of the fact that the bifurcation of APMC, Lakhn was not financially viable proposition which is apparent on the basis of above referred report of various authorities as well as opinion expressed by the State Marketing Board even then the DDR in violation of the provisions of Section 44 of the APMC Act passed the impugned order dated 22.09.2008, bifurcated respondent No.4- APMC, Lakhni and created APMC, Sakoli. The entire action of DDR is in violation of the statutory ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 14 provisions of the Act and, therefore, wholly unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
14. Shri N.W. Sambre, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petition is not tenable since there is alternate remedy available to the petitioners under Section 52(B) of the APMC Act. It is contended that the communications at page 37 of the petition by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lakhani and page 41 of the petition by District Deputy Registrar, Bhandara and at page 46 by Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhandara show the financial transactions of the APMC.
It is contended that the income and expenditure of APMC, the schedule of Agricultural Produce, the number of staff available, prima facie demonstrate that the authorities have applied their mind to the proposal of bifurcation. It is contended that the proposal of bifurcation was duly considered by the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune in its Board Meeting which was held on 15th September, 2008. The consent on behalf of the Director of Marketing was also obtained in this regard.
15. It is further contended by the learned Government ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 15 Pleader that the order dated 22nd September, 2008 passed under Section 44 of the APMC Act which is impugned in the present petition is in accordance with aims and objects sought to be achieved by the APMC Regulation Act, 1963 and is in the interest of the farmers of the area. It is further contended that the said order was also given effect by appointing Administrators. The Assistant Registrars, Co-operative Societies are appointed as Administrators to run both the APMCs presently and, therefore, election of erstwhile APMC of Lakhani has no relevance after bifurcation of the said APMC. Elections of both the APMCs were held in accordance with the statutory provisions. It is further contended that the petitioners have not made APMC, Sakoli as party-respondent and in absence thereof, any order passed by this Court adverse to the interest of APMC, Sakoli, would be violative of principles of natural justice insofar as the APMC, Sakoli is concerned. Shri Sambre, the learned Government Pleader further contended that it is not in dispute that at present APMC, Sakoli is run by Administrator who is Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and is the respondent No.6 before this Court in the present writ petition. He further contended that the communications referred by the petitioners in order to show that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 16 the proposals of bifurcation were not economically viable do not give a right picture. The authorities, after taking into consideration the overall view of the matter and after taking into consideration the due process of law, taken a decision in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 44 of the Act.
It is, therefore, contended that the action of the respondents is sustainable in law.
16. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties Section 44 of the APMC Act deals with Amalgamation or division of Market Committees. Sub section (1) contemplates that, where the State Government is satisfied that for securing efficient regulations of marketing of any agricultural produce in any market area [and for securing the economic viability of the Market Committee], it is necessary that two or more Market Committees should be amalgamated or any Market Committee should be divided into two or more Market Committees, then the State Government, may after consulting the Market Committees or Committee, as the case may be [and the [State Marketing Board]], by notification in the Official Gazette, provide for the amalgamation or division of such Market ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 17 Committee. Rest of the provisions of sub section (1) is not relevant for our purpose.
Sub section (1) requires certain factors to be considered by the State Government before it is satisfied whether it is necessary to amalgamate or bifurcate any market committee, those factors are as follows :
(a) for securing efficient regulations of marketing Agricultural Produce in any marketing area;
(b) for securing economic viability of Market Committee;
(c) to achieve the above purpose whether it is necessary to amalgamate two Market Committees or bifurcate Committee into two.
17. The provision has to be read in its right perspective.
Amalgamation or division of Market Committee unnecessarily shall depend upon satisfaction of the government in respect of the above referred factors and, therefore, the government/competent authority is required to apply its mind to each of these factors before getting satisfied whether there is a need to amalgamate or divide the Market Committee. We cannot forget that the process of amalgamation or division is not the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 18 empty formality. The process is required to be undertaken only if it would secure efficient regulation of marketing agricultural produce in any market area and for securing economic viability of the Market Committee and to achieve those objectives, it is necessary to amalgamate or to divide Market Committee.
Reaching the satisfaction mentioned in Section 44(1) is a first step to be taken by the State Government or by the competent authority before initiating the process of amalgamation or division of Market Committee. However, after reaching such satisfaction, the State Government or a Competent Authority is required to have effective consultation with the Market Committee/s and State Marketing Board which is a second requirement under Section 44 before issuing the notification. The process of consultation is also not an empty formality and must be effective one.
18. We would like to express that every action of the State Government or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above Board, but it should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 19 favouritism and nepotism. The decision should be made by the application of known principles and Rules applicable to the issue and such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know whether he is, but if the decision is taken without any principle or by ignoring the provisions of law applicable to the issue, it is unpredictable and such decision would not be sustainable in law.
19. In the instant case, the Assistant Registrar, Lakhni forwarded proposal for bifurcation of APMC, Lakhni vide communication dated 16.08.2008 to DDR, Cooperative Societies, Bhandara. On 26.06.2008, the respondent No.2-Director of Marketing informed the respondent No.1/State that considering the income and expenditure of respondent No.4-APMC, Lakhni, bifurcation of existing APMC, Lakhni would not be financially viable proposition.
On 16.08.2008, another Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lakhni submitted a report to respondent No.3-DDR, Bhandara wherein it is mentioned that the proposal of bifurcation of respondent No.4-APMC, Lakhni will not be financially viable.
On 21.08.2008, the respondent No.3-DDR, Bhandara ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 20 sent a communication to respondent No.2- Director of Marketing that the bifurcation of respondent No.4-APMC, Lakhni will not be financially viable.
On 26.08.2008, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur also informed the respondent No. 2-Director of Marketing that bifurcation of respondent No.4- APMC, Lakhni would not be financially viable proposition.
20. The State Government filed an affidavit in Writ Petition No. 3755 of 2008 on 05.09.2008 and in para 5 it has stated thus :-
"It is submitted that initially the proposal for bifurcation of APMC, Lakhni was submitted to the Government in November, 2005 and thereafter again on 26.02.2008 and 24.04.2008. It is submitted that the Director of Marketing by communication dated 26.06.2008, has informed the Government that in view of the report submitted by the District Deputy Regis5trars, it will not be feasible to bifurcate the APMC, Lakhni because of the financial difficulties as the expenses would be more than the income. It is submitted that in view of the position mentioned above, at present there is no bifurcation of APMC, Lakhni and, therefore, holding of election of APMC, Lakhni after the expiration of term did not violate any ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 21 provision of law. It is submitted that another proposal for bifurcation has been sent on 28.08.2008 and besides the proposal no action has been taken place for bifurcation of APMC, Lakhni." (emphasis supplied).
21. The perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Marketing Board which had taken place on 15.09.2008, demonstrate that the State Marketing Board had taken into consideration the communications sent by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies as well as DDR and prima facie found that if the APMC, Lakhni is bifurcated into two in that event the expenditure would be more than the income which would be generated by the Market Committees. However, since the powers to take a decision of bifurcation are delegated to DDR, it is for him to consider these aspects as well as the decision of the High Court if any and to take a decision in this regard. The Minutes of State Marketing Board unfortunately demonstrate complete non application of mind and whole consultative process was reduced to empty formality. The Marketing Board being a responsible body is required to be consulted for taking major decisions of amalgamation or bifurcation of APMCs in the larger interest of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 22 the farmers and, therefore, we expect that such body should discharge their duties effectively so that the objectives of the provisions of the Act will be achieved. In the instant case, the Marketing Board did not give its opinion one way or the other except reproduce the opinion already expressed by the Assistant Registrar and the DDR and, therefore, the entire consultative process was a mere farce. However, the fact remains that the proposal of bifurcation of APMC as per the reports/ communications issued by Assistant Registrar as well DDR show that it was never economically viable proposition and, therefore, the said proposal, in our view, was not consistent with the provisions of Section 44 of the Act.
22. This Court in the earlier writ petition in no way dealt with the aspect of bifurcation nor expressed any opinion on merits of the issue of bifurcation, after considering the provisions of Section 44 of the APMC Act in the said writ petition. So the question of making any orders passed in Writ Petition No. 3755 of 2008, a basis of decision making under Section 44 of the APMC Act for bifurcation of APMC by the competent authority did not arise.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 2323. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, on the face of it, it is crystal clear that all the authorities time and again communicated to the State Government as well as competent authority that bifurcation of respondent No.4-APMC, Lakhni in any eventuality shall never going to be financially viable proposition which is evident from the following facts.
24. The respondent No.2 - Director of Marketing, way back on 26.06.2008, informed the State Government that the bifurcation of APMC, Lakhni would not be financially viable proposition and same fact has been repeated by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 26.08.2008, by DDR on 20.08.2008, by Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 28.08.2008 and also reflected in the minutes of meeting of the State Marketing Board which was held on 15.09.2008, we fail to understand on what basis the DDR can justify that the bifurcation of respondent No.4 APMC is an action taken by him which is financially viable in the larger interest of the farmers. On the other hand, action of bifurcation is taken by ignoring the reports and the communications issued by the various authorities of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 24 Cooperative Department and in gross violation of provisions of Section 44 of the APMC Act and, therefore, in our view cannot be sustained in law.
25. So far as the alternate remedy is concerned, it is well settled that under Article 227, the jurisdiction of this Court does not cease merely because there is an alternate remedy available in law. However, as far as possible, the Court should be slow in showing indulgence if there is an alternate efficacious remedy available in law. In the instant case, under Section 44 of the Act, power to bifurcate or amalgamate is vested in the State Government which has been delegated to the DDR, who has passed the impugned order dated 22.09.2008. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the appeal against the said order lies before the State Government, in our view, in these facts and circumstances would be an empty formality and, therefore, we do not agree with the said contentions. So far as non-joinder of APMC, Sakoli as party-respondent is concerned, it is not in dispute that the State Government has already appointed Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies as an Administrator to run said APMC, Sakoli which is already joined as party-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 ::: 25respondent in the present writ petition. He is the nominee of the State Government and the learned Government Pleader is representing the State who is protecting the interests of the State Government as well as its officers. In these circumstances, the said contention is also rejected.
26. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Bhandara under Section 44 of the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*rrg.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:08:21 :::