Umesh Shankarrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Department of Agriculture Animal Husbandry Dairy

Mr. Joel Carlos with Mr. Rupesh Geete and Ms. Priya Dangat i/b Satyaki Law Associates, for the Petitioner in Public Interest Litigation No. 25 of 2025.

¶31

Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Advocate with Smt. P.H. Kantharia, Govt. Pleader and Mr. Milind More, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4-State in Public Interest Litigation No. 25/2025.

¶32

Mr. V.R. Dhond , Senior Advocate with Mr. Milind More, Addl. GP for for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3-State in Writ Petition No. 3260/2024.

¶33

Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Joshi and Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, for the Respondent No. 2 in Public Interest Litigation No. 25/2025.

¶34

Mr. Vinod Joshi, for the Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 3260/2024.

¶35

Mr. Bhushan Chandrakant Joshi with Ms. Sunanda M. Konkar, for Respondent No. 5 in WP/3260/2025 and for Respondent No. 3 in PIL/25/2025.

¶36

Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Harit, Mr. Niket Harit and Ms. Pooja Harit i/b Manoj Harit & Co., for Respondent No. 7 in Public Interest Litigation No. 25/2025.

¶37

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &

¶38

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 22 July 2025

¶39

JUDGMENT : ( Per Sandeep V. Marne, J )

¶40

1) These petitions challenge Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 which contemplates procurement and supply of five items (fertilizers, pesticides and agriculture equipment) to the farmers under special program for enhancement of productivity.

¶41

Page No.2 of 20

¶42

22 July 2025

¶43

WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶44

Ajit Pathrikar

¶45

Petitioners complain that the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 has the effect of deleting the items Battery Operated Sprayers, Nano Urea, Nano DAP, Metaldihide Pesticide and cotton storage bags from Schedule-A of Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016, by which amounts towards purchase of the said items were to be directly paid to the farmers under Direct Benefit Transfer ( DBT ). Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the State Government in directing procurement of the said items for supply thereof to the farmers through Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited ( MAIDCL ) and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited ( MSPCL ). Petitioners insist that the subsidy for procurement of the said five items must be paid in cash to the farmers so as to enable them to purchase the same from local traders rather than procuring and supplying them through agencies like MAIDCL, MSPC, etc.

¶46

2) Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 is filed by TIM Association which is an Association of manufacturers of sprayers and by Padgilwar Agro Industries, a manufacturer of manual sprayers, power sprayers and battery sprayers challenging the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024. Initially, the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 had also challenged tender process implemented by the State Government for procurement of Battery Operated Spray Pumps as well as work order issued to MAIDCL. However, prayers challenging the tender process and work order have been deleted from Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 and the challenge is now restricted only to the GR dated 12 March 2024.

¶47

Page No.3 of 20 22 July 2025

¶48

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶49

3) PIL No. 25 of 2025 is filed by three agriculturists challenging the GR dated 12 March 2024, to the extent of deletion of battery operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldihide pesticide and cotton storage bags from Schedule-A of GR dated 5 December 2016 as well as all the consequential decisions taken in pursuance of Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024. The PIL petition also challenges implementation of tender processes for procurement of the aforesaid items.

¶50

4) Brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the State Government has formulated various schemes under which subsidies are admissible to the beneficiaries. By Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016, the State Government formulated a policy of directly transferring the subsidy amounts into the accounts of the beneficiaries for purchase of the listed items rather than procuring and supplying them. The Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 enumerated 44 items for which DBT scheme was to be implemented. By Government Resolution dated 12 April 2018, the State Government constituted a committee for considering deletion of any item from the list of Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 and for redressal of complaints about implementation of the scheme. By Government Resolution dated 13 September 2019, the State Government deleted the item “seeds” from the list of GR dated 5 December 2016.

¶51

5) By GR dated 23 October 2023, the State Government granted administrative approval for implementation of a special program for enhancement of productivity and value chain development of integrated cotton, soybean and other oilseeds. The

¶52

Page No.4 of 20

¶53

22 July 2025

¶54

WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶55

Ajit Pathrikar

¶56

Government Resolution enumerated crop-wise and point-wise action plan in Appendix-1 and 2. The Government Resolution dated 23 October 2023 notified special action plan for two financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24.

¶57

6) By further GR dated 12 March 2024, the State Government decided to amend the Special Action Plan for 2023-24 and published a modified action plan. Under the modified action plan, the State Government formulated a scheme for provision of (i) Soybean-Nano DAP (Rs.600 per 500 ml. per pack), (ii) Soybean Nano Urea (Rs.225 per 500 ml. per pack), (iii) Metaldihide Pesticide (Rs.5030 per 5 kg pack) and (iv) Battery Operated Spray Pump for spray of Nano Urea and DAP (Rs. 1500 per pump). An amount of Rs.170.060 Crores has been sanctioned for procurement of the said four products under the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024. As per paragraph 4 of the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024, the funds of the scheme have been directed to be distributed to MAIDCL, MAHABEEJ and others by the Commissioner to avoid delay in fund disbursement. According to Petitioners, the Commissioner of Agriculture has written to the Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture Department, objecting to the changes introduced by Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 vide letter dated 15 March 2024. On 16 March 2024, the State Government wrote back to Commissioner (Agriculture), granting relaxation to direct bank transfer in respect of the four items and directing the Commissioner to immediately provide funds to MAIDCL and other institutions.

¶58

Page No.5 of 20 22 July 2025

¶59

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶60

7) MAIDCL accordingly published tender dated 5 April 2024, inviting requests for proposals for the long term leave and license of factory premises and for manufacturing of agricultural implements under “Krushi Udyog Brand”. The Petitioners in Writ Petition 3260 of 2024 are aggrieved by the implementation of the said tender process and contend that bidders from outside the State of Maharashtra have submitted their bids. Petitioners made representations against the tender process. On 8 May 2024, the summary of the financial bids was uploaded on the tender portal and Nawkar Agro Plast was found to be a successful bidder, to whom Work order dated 8 May 2024 was issued. Petitioners have accordingly filed Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024, challenging Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 as well as the entire tender process and Work order dated 8 May 2024. However, when the Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 came up for admission, Petitioners deleted prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d) in respect of challenge to the tender process and have restricted the petition only in respect of prayer clause (a) challenging the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024.

¶61

8) In the meantime, tender process was implemented for procurement of Cotton Storage Bags and the same was finalized on 24 May 2024. Similarly, mere supply of Nano DAP and Nano Urea tender process was implemented and the same was finalized on 26 April 2024. So far as Metaldihide Pesticide are concerned, tender process was implemented and the same was also finalized. Similarly, the tender process of procurement Battery Operated Sprayers was also finalized. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was initially filed by the three petitioners before the Nagpur Bench of this Court (bearing PIL

¶62

Page No.6 of 20

¶63

22 July 2025

¶64

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶65

No. 34 of 2024) challenging the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024, as well as all further actions and tender processes implemented in pursuance of the said Government Resolution. By interim order dated 7 August 2024, this Court directed MAIDCL and MSPC to disclose the name of the contractors appointed under impugned tender processes as well as details of purchase orders. Disbursement of payments to the contractors was stayed. The PIL petition was thereafter amended by impleading the entities to whom the contracts have been awarded in the tender process. The PIL Petitioners alleged that the MAIDCL and MSPC have procured all the five items of battery-operated spray pumps, nano dap, nano urea, metaldihide pesticide and cotton storage bags at exorbitant rates through impugned tender processes.

¶66

9) The PIL petition came to be transferred to the Principal Seat vide order dated 24 March 2025 and has been numbered as PIL No. 25 of 2025. By order dated 6 May 2025, the ad-interim order dated 7 August 2024 was modified, granting liberty for making payment of 50% amounts to the contractors who had already supplied the Cotton Bags subject to the outcome of the petition. The said arrangement was further modified by order dated 15 July 2025 leaving it open to MAIDCL and MSPCL to make entire payments to the contractors in respect of Cotton Storage Bags.

¶67

10) Mr. Sakhardande, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024, would submit that the impugned Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 is in the teeth of the provisions of earlier Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016. That the State Government has prescribed a

¶68

Page No.7 of 20

¶69

22 July 2025

¶70

WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶71

Ajit Pathrikar

¶72

procedure vide Government Resolution dated 12 April 2018 for deletion of any item from the list enumerated in the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016. That the concerned items have been deleted contrary to the procedure prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 12 April 2018. That mere implementation of Special Action Plan for productivity enhancement of cotton, soybean or other oilseeds crops cannot be a reason for skipping the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 12 April 2018. That the DBT scheme was more beneficial to the farmers where the battery operated spray pumps could be procured at a much cheaper rates. That one of the declared objectives of Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 was to give an impetus to the local businessmen/traders from whom the beneficiaries are supposed to purchase the listed items. That instead of letting the beneficiaries purchase the items at a cheaper rates directly from local traders, the State Government has now implemented complicated system of procurement of the items through MAIDCL and MSPCL. This scheme is aimed solely at favoring the large contractors. That Petitioners are affected persons and are entitled to maintain the petition. He would accordingly pray for setting aside the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024.

¶73

11) Mr. Carlos the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in PIL No. 25 of 2025 would adopt the submissions of Mr. Sakhardande. He would additionally submit that the impugned scheme under the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 is resulting in procurement of the products at much higher rates thereby bleeding the public exchequer. That the five items could be deleted from

¶74

Page No.8 of 20

¶75

22 July 2025

¶76

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶77

purview of the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 only by the Committee constituted vide Government Resolution dated 12 April 2018. That since prescribed procedure is not followed, indirect deletion of the five items from Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 is ab-initio void and that therefore the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶78

12) The petition is opposed by the Mr. Dhond, the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of State Government and Commissioner (Agriculture). He would submit that the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 was issued with an altogether aim of making available direct cash facility to the beneficiaries for procurement several product needed for agricultural activities or otherwise. That the list enumerated in the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 included 44 items. He would invite our attention to Item No. 16 under which the distributed materials included harvest process equipment. That as against the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016, the Government Resolutions dated 23 October 2023 and 12 March 2024 are issued with an altogether different objective of implementation of Special Action Plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds crops. The program introduced vide Government Resolution dated 23 October 2023 as amended Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024, is aimed at giving an impetus to the production of crops of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds crops. That the said program have no nexus with the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016. The State Government has sanctioned funds for implementation of Special Action Plan for the listed crops and that

¶79

Page No.9 of 20

¶80

22 July 2025

¶81

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶82

the action plan is not restricted only to the products of fertilizers or agricultural equipment and the same envisages various measures for encouraging the farmers to undertake the activity of taking crops of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds crops. That the Petitioners have unnecessarily created a confusion between the two schemes operating in entirely different areas. He would accordingly pray for dismissal of the petitions.

¶83

13) Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned senior advocate for MAIDCL in PIL No. 25 of 2025, would submit that the PIL petition is misconceived. That the tender prices for agricultural equipment are consistent with the market prices. That the special scheme implemented by the State Government would in fact assist the farmers in making the necessary equipment and fertilizers available easily. He would submit that the present litigation initiated at the behest of manufacturers of equipment cannot be entertained with a view to frustrate the scheme introduced by the State Government. That the petitions are aimed at frustrating the special action plan so as to promote the private interests of Petitioners.

¶84

14) Mr. Anturkar learned senior advocate appearing for Respondent No. 7 in PIL No. 25 of 2025, who is one of the successful bidders of supply of Cotton Bags, would oppose the petition. He would submit that the PIL has been filed at the behest of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024. That the prayers relating to challenge to tender process were deleted by the Writ Petitioners and thereafter PIL petition was filed at Nagpur Bench of this Court. He would demonstrate the connection between the Writ Petitioners and PIL Petitioners in support of his contention that the Petitioners

¶85

Page No.10 of 20

¶86

22 July 2025

¶87

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶88

have undertaken the exercise of forum shopping. He would submit that his client is suffering on account of interim order passed by this Court. He therefore would submit that the PIL petition should be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs and by penalizing the Petitioners.

¶89

15) Mr. Joshi the learned counsel appearing for another successful trader (Respondent No. 5) in PIL No. 25 of 2025 would also oppose the petition.

¶90

16) We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for rival parties and we have perused the records of the case.

¶91

17) The State Government introduced the scheme for Direct Bank Transfer to the beneficiaries rather than making available the products and items under various schemes. The Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 was issued by Planning Department of the State Government and the scheme introduced vide the said Government Resolution is not restricted only to the agricultural products. The DBT scheme was already operational in respect of areas of scholarship, employment guarantee scheme, pension, subsidy for LPG gas cylinders, etc. The State Government expanded the ambit of the DBT scheme vide the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016. Perusal of the list of items including in Appendix “A” to the Government Resolution would indicate that the DBT scheme is not restricted only to the agricultural products but covers several items unconnected with agriculture. No doubt the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 also

¶92

Page No.11 of 20

¶93

22 July 2025

¶94

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶95

included agricultural products such as distribution of seeds, harvest productions equipment, pesticides, etc. One of the objectives declared in the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 is benefit to local businessmen/traders as the beneficiaries would purchase the items from local market. However, Para 2 of Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 also envisages purchase and distribution of items by government departments by following the prescribed procedure.

¶96

18) By Government Resolution dated 12 April 2018, the State Government constituted a committee of seven members for recommending deletion of items from DBT scheme as well as to issue necessary clarifications for resolution of queries about the implementation of DBT scheme. It appears that by Government Resolution dated 13 September 2019, the item ‘seeds’ was deleted from Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 in accordance with the recommendations made by the committee. By relying on Government Resolution dated 13 September 2019, Petitioners claim that the five impugned items could also be deleted from the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 strictly in accordance with the procedure enumerated in the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 as was done for the item ‘seeds’ since vide Government Resolution dated 12 April 2018.

¶97

19) The Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department decided to implement Special Action Plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseed crops for the year 2023-24. Accordingly, Government Resolution dated 23 October 2023 was

¶98

Page No.12 of 20

¶99

22 July 2025

¶100

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶101

issued by the said department, under which administrative approval was granted for implementation of the Special Action Plan with expenditure of Rs. 520.86 Crores (Cotton Rs. 238.89 Crores and Soyabean and other oil seeds Rs.281.97 Crores) for enhancement of productivity integrated cotton, soybean and other oilseeds and for value chain development in the year 2023-24. The description of financial and physical figures, crop-wise and point-wise under the Special Action Plan was indicated in Appendix-1 and 2 to the said Government Resolution.

¶102

20) By further Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024, the Special Action Plan introduced vide Government Resolution dated 23 October 2023 was modified and accordingly modified action plan for the year 2023-24 was introduced by indicating fresh description of financial and physical figures, crop-wise and pointwise under Appendix-1 and 2. Under Appendix-1, budgetary provision of Rs.172.22 Crore is made for procurement of CottonNano DAP, Cotton-Nano Urea and Cotton Storage Bags. It is proposed to procure 6,18,032 Cotton Storage Bags at the rate of Rs.1200 per bag. Similarly, Appendix-2 dealing with Soybean and other Oilseeds, it has been decided to procure soybean and nano dap, soybean-nano urea, metaldihide pesticide and battery operated spray pumps at total cost of Rs. 170.060 Crores. Under the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024, Commissioner (Agricultural) is specified as controlling officer and the implementation of the scheme is to be made through MAIDCL, MAHABEEJ and other concerned institutes. The Commissioner (Agricultural) has been directed to provide funds to the said institutions for implementation of the scheme.

¶103

Page No.13 of 20

¶104

22 July 2025

¶105

WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶106

Ajit Pathrikar

¶107

21) Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the State Government in procuring and supplying the five items of nano dap, nano urea (for soybean and cotton), metaldihide pesticide, cotton storage bags and battery-operated spray pumps. They believe that the said items cannot be procured but only the cost thereof needs to be paid directly in the accounts of the beneficiaries under the DBT Scheme.

¶108

22) However closer scrutiny of the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 (introducing DBT Scheme) and Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 (modifying the Special Action Plan for cotton, soyabean and oilseeds) would indicate that they operate in completely different and independent spheres. The two schemes of Direct Bank Transfer (Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016) and Special Action Plan for cotton, soybean and other oilseeds crops (Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024) are not only implemented by different departments of State Government, but both are aimed at an altogether different objective. The Government Resolution dated 23 October 2023 as modified by Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 are aimed at encouraging the farmers to grow cotton soybean and other oilseeds crops. The ambit of the said Government Resolutions is not restricted only to the procurement of any items, but they are issued with the objective of providing over all support for encouraging the farmers to grow cotton, soybean and oilseeds crops. The program envisages various activities such as holding of demonstrations, setting up of agricultural schools, appointment of group promoters, farmer training, field visits, metal waste organic farming, setting up of new farmer procedure companies, setting up shades for cotton stocking,

¶109

Page No.14 of 20

¶110

22 July 2025

¶111

WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶112

Ajit Pathrikar

¶113

etc. The expenditure allotted for other activities is more than the funds allotted for procurement of the five items. Thus the main objective behind the Special Action Plan is not procurement and supply of any items but to encourage the farmers to grow the specified crops. As against this, the earlier Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 is aimed at implementing the methodology of direct transfer of subsidy to the beneficiaries of various schemes. The Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 by itself has not introduced the subsidy scheme, but merely changes the methodology of disbursement of the subsidy. This is how the two Government Resolutions apply in totally different spheres.

¶114

23) Petitioners have erroneously mixed up the two Government Resolutions which have no nexus with each other. Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 cannot be read to mean imposition of any embargo on the State Government to introduce any new scheme or plan for any special purpose, which includes procurement and supply of products as an integral part of the scheme/plan. In the present case, procurement and supply of the 5 items is an integral part of the Special Action Plan. Supply of such 5 items cannot be delinked from the Special Action Plan. The State Government has considered it necessary that for effective implementation of the Special Action Plan, supply of the 5 items is necessary rather than leaving it for the farmers to scout for the products from local traders. The special action plan applies only to the farmers growing the specified crops and does not have general application like Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016.

¶115

Page No.15 of 20 22 July 2025

¶116

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶117

24) It therefore cannot be contended that there is any embargo on the State Government in securing procurement of any item listed in the Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 while implementing the Special Action Plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds crops. The challenge by the Petitioners to the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 is thus totally baseless and deserves rejection.

¶118

25) Since we are not able to trace any error in the policy decision taken by the State Government in procurement of five items towards implementation of Special Action Plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds crops vide Government Resolutions dated 23 October 2023 and 12 March 2024, no interference is warranted in the tender process implemented for procurement of the said items.

¶119

26) As a matter fact, Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 lack locus to challenge the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024. The said petition is filed by association of manufacturers of sprayers, who have no locus to challenge implementation of Special Action Plan by the State Government. For protecting their private interest of doing business in sprayers, the manufacturers and traders cannot be permitted to challenge the broader scheme of productivity enhancement and value chain development of the listed crops. However, even if the issue of locus of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 is to be momentarily ignored, we are unable to trace any element of arbitrariness and irrationality in the decision of State Government in implementing the

¶120

Page No.16 of 20

¶121

22 July 2025

¶122

WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶123

Ajit Pathrikar

¶124

Special Action Plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds crops.

¶125

27) Even otherwise we do not see any element of public interest in the PIL. Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 is clearly aimed at achieving the private interest of manufacturers of sprayers. Even in the PIL petition, the whole thrust is on procurement of the items at higher costs and how purchase of those items from local traders would be cheaper. No attempt is made to demonstrate as to how direct disbursal of amounts for purchase of the said five items in accounts of farmers would better achieve the objective of giving impetus to cultivation of specified crops has been made in the PIL Petition. Even during the course of arguments no such attempt is made. The special remedy of filing PIL is thus grossly abused by the traders and manufacturers of equipment and filing of the PIL and WP is in fact against the interest of farmers. The process of law is thus grossly abused.

¶126

28) Some of the Respondents have leveled serious allegations against Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024. It is alleged that they withdrew the prayers from their Petition for challenging the tenders and thereafter facilitated filing of PIL No. 25 of 2025 before Nagpur Bench of this Court. They are accused of forum shopping. Mr. Tushar Padgilwar is the President of Agri Sprayer TIM Association (Petitioner No. 1) and also the partner of Padgilwar Agro Industries (Petitioner No.2). He initially sought to challenge the tender process initiated in pursuance of the impugned Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024. However, the prayers challenging the tender process were deleted after seeking leave of this Court vide

¶127

Page No.17 of 20

¶128

22 July 2025

¶129

Ajit Pathrikar WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶130

order dated 5 July 2024. Few days thereafter, PIL 34 of 2024 was filed before Nagpur Bench of this Court on 30 July 2024, and the Court was persuaded to pass interim direction of stay on disbursal of payments to contractors. The PIL was later transferred to the Principal Seat and numbered as PIL No. 25 of 2025. There appears to be clear connection between the two proceedings. In Interim Application No. 1338 of 2025, it is pointed out that Mr. Tushar Padgilwar has requested the Applicants therein to issue the Bills/Tax Invoices in the name of Umesh Bhole (Petitioner No. 1 in PIL), which are annexed with the PIL Petition. That Mr. Tushar Padgilwar had insisted on issuance of the said Bills in the name of Umesh Bhole by misrepresenting the Applicants. The Interim Application refers to exchange of WhatsApp messages between Applicant No. 1 and Mr. Tushar Padgilwar. The WhatsApp chat is produced at Annexure-4 to the said IA. The Bills so collected by Mr. Tushar Padgilwar from the Applicants (in the name of Umesh Bhole) have been relied upon in the PIL for the purpose of demonstrating that the products are procured at higher rate than market rates. Thus Mr. Tushar Padgilwar has collected some of the documents which are filed in the PIL. There is thus direct connection between Mr. Tushar Padgilwar and the PIL, which appears to have been filed at the instance of Mr. Tushar Padgilwar, after he withdrew the prayers relating to tenders from Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024. This act of Mr. Tushar Padgilwar in filing Writ Petition before Principal Seat and facilitating filing of PIL before Nagpur Bench for same cause of action is deprecated. Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 have raised allegation that the prayers in Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 relating to tenders were withdrawn after noticing this Court’s disinclination to grant any relief and thereafter PIL was filed before Nagpur Bench at the behest

¶131

Page No.18 of 20

¶132

22 July 2025

¶133

WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶134

Ajit Pathrikar

¶135

of Mr. Tushar Padgilwar for securing interim orders against the tender process. We can sense a clear connect between the two proceedings and the same appears to have been filed at the instance of same person. Mr. Tushar Padgilwar appears to be the main actor in the entire litigation spree. He has acted in multiple capacities as President of the Association, Partner of his own firm and facilitator behind filing of PIL. For such conduct, costs deserve to be imposed on Mr. Tushar Padgilwar.

¶136

29) Also, filing of these baseless petitions has resulted in creation of hurdles in effective implementation of the Special Action Plan, which is aimed at giving impetus to cultivation of specified crops and benefitting the farmers. A trader and manufacturer of one of the products has attempted to frustrate the Special Action Plan with the motive of promoting his own business interests. For this reason also, while dismissing the Petitions, we are inclined to impose costs on the Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024.

¶137

30) We are therefore do not find any merit in Writ Petition as well as PIL petition and both are accordingly dismissed by imposing costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority within 4 weeks. If costs are not paid within the stipulated time, the Registry shall make a report to the jurisdictional District Collector for recovery of amount of costs from Mr. Tushar Padgilwar as arrears of land revenue.

¶138

Page No.19 of 20 22 July 2025

¶139

WP-3260-2024 & PIL-25-2025 (2).docx

¶140

Ajit Pathrikar

¶141

31) In view of the dismissal of the Writ petition as well as PIL petition, the Interim Applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.

¶142

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶143

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶144

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2025.07.24 15:41:50 +0530

¶145

Page No.20 of 20 22 July 2025

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Department of Agriculture Animal Husbandry Dairy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Department of Agriculture Animal Husbandry Dairy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Priyanka Jalindar Ingavale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Dinesh S/O. Sheshrao Thakre and Another vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Ors.

Anuj Krishnakumar Mittal vs State of Maharashtra

Dhananjay Narasinghiah Gowda vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

Suvarna Rajaram Ghevade and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Milind Keer vs State of Maharashtra through the Office of the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya and Ors.

Shabbir Abdul Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra (through Govt. Pleader) and Ors.

Maza Bharat Samajik Sanstha Thr Its Secretary Jagannath Pandurang Kharge vs the Municipal Commissioner Panvel Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Monali Prabhakar Ahirrao vs Iifl Securities Limited

Kapil Natwarlal Gor vs Nutan Realty

Sunil S/O. Darshan Saberwal vs Star India Private Limited and Ors.

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs Tool Craft Industries

Agri Sprayers T.I.M. Association vs the State of Maharashtra

Stalin Dayanand vs the District Collector, Mumbai City