Disposed

Harlal Laxman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Dec 2016WP/9146/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for APMC elections as previous tenure expired. Court held that since the newly constituted committee under notification dated 1.12.2015 was not assailed and members were officiating, the claim could not be entertained and the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Relief claimed in the petition for conducting elections is not granted as the committee constituted under the Act was not assailed.

Harlal Laxman Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 9146/16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.9146/2016

¶6

Harlal Laxman Chavan.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri Milind M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for petitioner.
Smt.Vaishali Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate i/b Shri S.V. Mundhe,
Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 01.12.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]Mr.Milind Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶17

submits that the petitioner was an elected member of

¶18

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jintur, for a

¶19

tenure of five years i.e. from 2008-09 to 2013-14. The

¶20

learned counsel submits that the Jintur APMC was
bifurcated into two i.e. Jintur and Bori APMC under the

¶21

order dated 1.12.2015. According to the learned counsel,

¶22

WP 9146/16

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

prior to the said bifurcation, the extension was granted
to the board of directors of Jintur APMC upto 20.2.2015.
Thereafter, administrative Board is appointed on
21.2.2015. The learned counsel submits that though the
tenure of the earlier committee has expired on 20.2.2015,
however, no elections are being held of Jintur APMC and
administrative Board cannot be allowed to function for an
indefinite period. According to the learned counsel, the
elections even as per Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of
the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1963, have to be held after lapse
of five years. As such, the respondents be directed to
conduct the elections of Jintur APMC.

¶25

2]Mr.Dixit, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent
no.4, submits that under order dated 1.12.2015, the APMC,
Jintur, was bifurcated into APMC Bori and APMC Jintur as

¶26

per Section 14 of the Act, 1963. New APMC came into
existence as per the notification. The learned Senior
Advocate submits that as per Sub-section (3) of Section
14 of the Act, 1963, the members of the committee
constituted for the first time shall hold office for a
period of two years. Pursuant to the said provision, the

¶27

WP 9146/16

¶28

- 3 -

¶29

committee is constituted for a period of two years on
16.4.2016. After the lapse of the said two years, then
only elections can be held. The learned Senior Advocate
submits that as on the bifurcation, the State has powers
to appoint the committee for two years and the said
powers having been exercised, the same not having been
assailed, the petition cannot be entertained.

¶30

3]We have heard the learned AGP also.

¶31

4]The fact that Jintur APMC came to be bifurcated

¶32

under notification dated 1.12.2015 is not disputed. It

¶33

is also a matter of record that on 16.4.2016, the
committee is constituted for a period of two years. The
same is constituted resorting to the powers u/s 14(3) of

¶34

the Act, 1963 and the said committee has assumed the
office also.

¶35

5]The constitution of the said committee for two

¶36

years has not been assailed till date. The said

¶37

committee is still officiating. The area of operation of the erstwhile APMC has also changed. Some of the members of original APMC also would now be within the purview of Bori APMC. The board of directors of the original APMC have become non-est .

¶38

WP 9146/16

¶39

6]Considering the fact that the appointment of the
committee on 16.4.2016 has not been assailed and these
persons are officiating pursuant to the said appointment,
the relief claimed in the petition cannot be considered.

¶40

7]In view of above, writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.

¶41

ndk/ c112162.doc

Harlal Laxman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harlal Laxman Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rafia Begam Ansari Sabbir Ahmed Ansari Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Aruna Dinkar Mane Vs the Chief Ex Officer Z P Beed and Ors.

Balwant Ramrao Ambad Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Gangaram Waghmare Vs the Director of Archives Govt. of Mah Elphinstone College

Sumanbai Bhaurao Shinde Vs Veeraswami Nandaiyya Nagula

Sadashiv Tukaram Sanap Vs S P Jaiswal and Others