Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

WRIT PETITION NO. 6913/2020 (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, AMBEJOGAI, DIST. BEED).

19. The elections of the APMC, Ambejogai were held in the year 27 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .

2015. Since the formation of the APMC, Ambejogai, the petitioner and Board of the Directors have taken decisions so as to improve the working of the APMC. However, in the meantime, they left NCP Party and joined BJP Party. The Directors belonging to NCP and local leaders of Ruling Party thereby pressurized the District Deputy Registrar to dislodge the Body. Because of the political pressure, the District Deputy Registrar has issued notice under section 45 of the APMC Act, 1963. All the Directors submitted in detail reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner in apprehension of adverse order, which may be passed by the District Deputy Registrar filed writ petition No. 13996/2018 and sought protection of 15 days. This Court pleased to grant protection for 15 days vide order dated 19.12.2018. The District Deputy Registrar did not follow the procedure for consultation with Apex Body i.e. the State Marketing Board. However, passed the order dated 02.07.2019 under political pressure of the Ruling Party. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 02.07.2019 under Section 45 appointing Administrator by filing writ petition No. 6629/2019. After appearing the parties this Court pleased to protect the petitioner by continuing protection granted in writ petition No. 13996/2018. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Government has postponed the elections of the APMC by exercising powers under Section 14 (3-A) of the Act. The petitioner continued to occupy the chair. The development work of the APMC was going on like issuing tender notice. It is contended that because of the pressure of sitting MLC from Ruling Party, stay order was passed by the Hon'ble Minister. Against that stay order, the petitioner has preferred writ petition No. 6355/2020 wherein 28 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .

26. It is further stand of the State Government that the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy to challenge the order passed by respondent No. 3 regarding appointment of the Administrator on the 32 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .

APMCs in view of section 52B of the Act.

27. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies has been delegated the powers by the Director of Marketing in respect of appointment of Administrator over the APMCs, vide Ordinance dated 29.11.2014 in exercise of powers under Section 15A of the Act. The respondent has appointed Administrator over the Market Committees. The petitioners have alternate remedy to challenge the order of appointment of Administrators and writ petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

43. To grant extension to the term of APMCs under section 14(3) of the Act of 1963 is certainly discretion of the State Government. The discretion that vests with the Government is not an unregulated discretion, but discretion needs to be exercised as per the applicable norms, rational behind it coupled with circumstances appearing on record while granting extension or refusing the same. The State Government is not expected to use its discretionary powers under section 14 (3) of the Act of 1963 arbitrarily, capriciously and without recording cogent reasons. The decision of granting or refusing extension to the APMCs must be impartial, fair and supported by reasons. The State is required to take policy decision in this regard by considering the proposals given by the 43 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .

44 WP-5164-2020 & 9 Ors J .

45. We have also called the original file from the Department of Co-operation and Marketing, Mantralaya, Mumbai regarding APMC Aurangabad. On perusing the file, it appears that Note sheet was put up before the higher authority to consider the proposal of the APMC Aurangabad with relevant provisions of the Act of 1963. However, in one line proposal for extension of term of APMC came to be turned down by stating that there is no need to grant extension. It is not a compliance of section 14 (3) of the Act of 1963. When a particular provision provides that before granting extension or refusing the same, the State shall record reasons certainly, decision must be supported by recording reasons. As such, the impugned decision of refusing to grant of extension to the APMC is found defective in view of section 14 (3) of the Act of 1963.