Rajendra S/O Champatrao Khawshi v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Marketing, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2025WP/7177/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APMC bifurcation division Ashti Karanja Wardha; Section 44 APMC Act amalgamation or division of Market Committees; mandatory consultation Market Committee State Marketing Board; District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies Wardha; Maharashtra State Agriculture Marketing Board resolution 05.04.2023; Notification 02.12.2024 quashed; Sunil Kailashchandra Rawat 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 865; writ petition allowed; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; 2025:BHC-NAG:7049-DB.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned Notification dated 02.12.2024 quashed and set aside; District Deputy Registrar directed to consult the newly elected body of APMC as per Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act before any further action for bifurcation. ¶¶54

Rajendra S/O Champatrao Khawshi vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Marketing, Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notification dated 02.12.2024 initiating bifurcation/division of APMC Ashti (to create APMC Karanja) could validly be issued in the absence of consultation with APMC Ashti as mandated by Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act. +1 more

¶¶48

Court's answer

The impugned Notification dated 02.12.2024 was issued without consultation of APMC Ashti, as mandated by Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act, and is therefore unjustified and contrary to the provision of law.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

Submission of information as per check list points No.1 to No.20 does not amount to consultation in respect of bifurcation of the APMC; consequently there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act and the impugned Notification dated 02.12.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (2025:BHC-NAG:7049-DB; W.P. No.7177/2024; decided 21.07.2025; M.S. Jawalkar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.) allows writ petition and quashes Notification dated 02.12.2024 issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wardha initiating division/bifurcation of APMC Ashti and creation of APMC Karanja: consultation with the Market Committee under Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act is mandatory, and furnishing of information against a check list (points 1-20, communication dated 23.03.2023) does not amount to such consultation; the notification issued without consultation of APMC Ashti is unjustified and contrary to law. The District Deputy Registrar is directed to consult the newly elected body of the APMC under Section 44 before any further bifurcation action. Relies on Sunil Kailashchandra Rawat v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 865.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:7049-DB

¶2

wp 7177-2024.odt 1/10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7177/2024

¶6

Rajendra s/o Champatrao Khawshi, Aged about 59 years, Occupation: Agriculturist/ Chairman, A.P.M.C., Ashti, R/o Ward No.2, Old Karanja, Nara, Tah. And District Wardha.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

...VERSUS…

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

¶10

Maharashtra State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pune, through Executive Director, Plot No.R-7, Chhatrapati Shivaji Market Yard, Gultekdi, Pune-411 037.

¶11

District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Wardha.

¶12

Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ashti (Shahid), Tq. Ashti, Dist. Wardha, through its Secretary.

¶13

Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ashti (Shahid), Tq. Ashti, Dist. Wardha, through its Administrator Shri Gautam Dhongade.

¶14

Agriculture Produce Market

¶15

wp 7177-2024.odt 2/10

¶16

Committee, Karanja (Ghadge), Tq. Karanja (Gh.), Dist. Wardha, through its Administrator Shri Sandip Bharati

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

Shri R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate a/w Shri A.D. Dangore, Advocate for petitioner

¶19

Shri S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3/State Shri V.G. Ingle, Advocate h/f Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri B.M. Kharkate, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6

¶20

CORAM : SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ..

¶21

DATED : 21.07.2025

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶23

. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.

¶24

The present petition is filed challenging the

¶25

Notification issued by District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wardha dated 02.12.2024, whereby action of division of respondent No.4/Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ashti, District Wardha initiated. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee at Ashti was established in the year 1975. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have initiated the action for division/bifurcation of respondent No.4 A.P.M.C., Ashti by forming new A.P.M.C. of

¶26

wp 7177-2024.odt 3/10

¶27

Karanja. It is contention of the petitioner that the action of bifurcation is initiated only due to political demand of local MLA, who is from ruling party.

¶28

It appears that respondent No.2- Maharashtra State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pune, has passed a resolution dated 05.04.2023 on the recommendation of respondent No.3- District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wardha for division of respondent No.4- Ashti A.P.M.C., and thereby to establish A.P.M.C. Karanja by dividing respondent No.4-Ashti A.P.M.C. into two Market Committees. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has directed the respondent No.3 to take appropriate action and consequently, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 A.P.M.C. to submit its report by its communication dated 26.04.2023 (annexure-C page31).

¶29

4 It is submitted that the date on which the proposal was forwarded to respondent No.2 and the resolution passed on 05.04.2023 at that time, the process of A.P.M.C. Election was already began. In such circumstances, the proposal ought not to

¶30

wp 7177-2024.odt 4/10

¶31

have forwarded for bifurcation of respondent No.4- A.P.M.C. The proposal forwarded by respondent No.3 dated 14.01.2022 came to be rejected as it is a policy decision and it ought to have been taken by the newly elected body.

¶32

If Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act is perused, which reads as under:

¶33

“ Section 44 Amalgamation or division of Market Committees

¶34

(1) Where the State Government is satisfied that for securing efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural produce in any market area, [and for ensuring the economic viability of the Market Committee], it is necessary that two or more Market Committees therein should be amalgamated or any Market Committee therein should be divided into two or more Market Committees, then the State Government may, after consulting the Marketing 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 Committees into a single Market Committee or into two or more Market Committees, for the market area in respect of the agricultural produce specified in the notifications with such constitution, property, rights, interests and authorities and such liabilities, duties and obligations (including provision in respect of contracts, assets,

¶35

wp 7177-2024.odt 5/10

¶36

employees, proceedings, and such incidental, consequential and supplementary matters as may be necessary to give effect to such amalgamation or as the case may be, the division), as may be specified in the notification.

¶37

(2) Where more Market Committees than one are established in any market area under sub-section (1), the State Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, issue general or special directions as to which of the Market Committees shall exercise the powers, perform the duties and discharge the functions of the Market Committee under this Act, in which they are jointly interested or which are of a common nature.

¶38

(3) Where any directions are issued under sub-section (2), the cost incurred by a Market Committee in pursuance of the directions shall be shared by the other Market Committees concerned in such proportion as may be agreed upon or in default of agreement, as may be determined by the State Government or such officer as that Government may direct in this behalf. The decision of the State Government or such officer shall be final.”

¶39

Learned Senior Counsel Shri R.L. Khapre, for petitioner

¶40

relied on Sunil Kailashchandra Rawat and others Vs. State of

¶41

Maharashtra and others, 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 865 , wherein this Court held as under:

¶42

wp 7177-2024.odt 6/10

¶43

“It is well settled that the bifurcation of a Market Committee could be ordered only after effective consultation with the Market Committee and the State Marketing Board. Consultation with the Market Committee and the State Marketing Board is mandatory and not directory. The Market Committee should have been consulted after the proposal was mooted. The District Deputy Registrar, while forwarding a proposal in respect of bifurcation to the State Marketing Board, was obliged to send a similar proposal to the concerned APMC which was not sent. The State Government did not consult the concerned Market Committee before the Market Committee was bifurcated by the impugned order. Consultation is not an empty formality and the same should be effective and meaningful. The consultation with the State Marketing Board, is neither effective nor meaningful. One Member of the State Marketing Board was not aware about the view of the other Member of the Board on the subject of bifurcation. In a consultation, meeting of minds between the parties is necessary and each Member of the State Marketing Board ought to have been made aware about the view of the other Member or Members on the subject. It cannot be said that there was an effective consultation with the State Marketing Board before the order of bifurcation of the Market Committee was passed by the State Government. If the statute so requires that the body should be consulted, the decision cannot be rendered by the Authority concerned without complying with the mandatory provision pertaining to consultation. The impugned order of the District Deputy Registrar and the notification of the State Government are quashed and set aside.”

¶44

wp 7177-2024.odt 7/10

¶45

The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wardha vide communication dated 08.02.2022 is in-consonance with the provision of A.P.M.C. Act specifically Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act.

¶46

Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further pointed out that as per communication dated 19.05.2023, it was informed that considering the financial viability, it will not be possible to submit its report for division of A.P.M.C. until the opinions of agriculturists transacting business through the said A.P.M.C. are invited. The financial position of the A.P.M.C. was already informed. The Resolution dated 18.05.2023 (page 33) was duly informed to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wardha, vide its communication dated 19.05.2023. It appears that the communication dated 16.06.2023, the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Wardha, to respondent No.2, it was informed that the duly elected body has taken charge by the resolution dated 18.05.2023. The new body sought time to take opinion of the agriculturists.

¶47

wp 7177-2024.odt 8/10

¶48

In spite of this position, the District Deputy Registrar initiated action for bifurcation of Karanja and Ashti A.P.M.C. by issuing Notification dated 02.12.2024. By this Notification, the objections were called within 30 days from the date of Notification. It appears that without considering the request of A.P.M.C., the decision was taken to bifurcate Karanja and Ashti A.P.M.C. Earlier, proposal was rejected by the District Deputy Registrar on the ground that in view of ensuing elections, it would be appropriate to take decision on bifurcation, being policy decision, by the newly elected body. After taking a charge and after election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman, the body of the A.P.M.C. Ashti, has taken resolution dated 18.05.2023, whereby it was informed that the A.P.M.C. will have to consult with the agriculturists who are transacting through A.P.M.C. Ashti. So also, it was informed that it is not financially viable to bifurcate Ashti A.P.M.C. into Ashti and Karanja which may cause financial loss. The main contention is that as per Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act, there is no consultation with the A.P.M.C. Ashti. Why its consultation is mandatory, it is discussed by this Court in Sunil Kailashchandra Rawat and others (supra). It is observed that the change in the structure of the Market

¶49

wp 7177-2024.odt 9/10

¶50

Committee would cause loss to the APMC which in turn would cause loss to the petitioners. The consultation is not an empty formality and the same should be effective and meaningful. As such, on perusal of impugned Notification it appears that the impugned Notification issued without consultation of the A.P.M.C. Ashti is unjustified, and contrary to the provision of law.

¶51

Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there is information about the financial position forwarded by A.P.M.C. Ashti, would indicate that there was consultation and proposal forwarded by A.P.M.C. Ashti. On perusal of communication dated 23.03.2023 on which, learned AGP is relying, it appears that as information was sought from Ashti A.P.M.C., the information as per check list point No.1 to Point No.20 is submitted to the District Deputy Registrar. However, that does not amount to any consultation in respect of bifurcation of the A.P.M.C. Ashti. As such, there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act and, therefore, the impugned Notification dated 02.12.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:

¶52

wp 7177-2024.odt 10/10

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶55

ii) The impugned Notification dated 02.12.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶56

iii) The District Deputy Registrar is, therefore, directed to consult the newly elected body of A.P.M.C. as per provision under Section 44 of the A.P.M.C. Act, before issuance of any further action for bifurcation.

¶57

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶58

( PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶59

R.S. Sahare

¶60

Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 22/07/2025 18:18:10

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notification dated 02.12.2024 issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wardha, initiating bifurcation of Ashti APMC into Ashti and Karanja market committees; objections were called within 30 days from the date of the Notification.¶¶49
District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Wardha · 02.12.2024
Prior proceeding
Proposal forwarded by respondent No.3 dated 14.01.2022 came to be rejected as bifurcation is a policy decision which ought to have been taken by the newly elected body.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
District Deputy Registrar's communication dated 08.02.2022 was in consonance with the A.P.M.C. Act, specifically Section 44.¶¶45
Prior proceeding
At the time the proposal was forwarded to respondent No.2 and the resolution dated 05.04.2023 was passed, the process of A.P.M.C. election had already begun.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Vide communication dated 23.03.2023, information as per check list points No.1 to No.20 sought from Ashti APMC was submitted to the District Deputy Registrar (later held not to amount to consultation).¶¶51
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 (MSAMB) passed a resolution dated 05.04.2023 on the recommendation of respondent No.3 for division of Ashti APMC and establishment of APMC Karanja; respondent No.3 thereafter directed respondent No.4 to submit its report by communication dated 26.04.2023 (annexure-C page 31).¶¶28
Prior proceeding
By communication dated 19.05.2023 it was informed, per resolution dated 18.05.2023 (page 33), that considering the financial viability it would not be possible to submit the report for division until opinions of agriculturists transacting business through the APMC were invited.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
By communication dated 16.06.2023 the District Deputy Registrar informed respondent No.2 that the duly elected body had taken charge by resolution dated 18.05.2023; the new body sought time to take the opinion of agriculturists.¶¶46

Rajendra S/O Champatrao Khawshi v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Marketing, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra S/O Champatrao Khawshi v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Marketing, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manisha S/O. Wamanrao Nanote Vs State of Maha., Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development, Mumbai and Ors.

Narendra S/O Dajiba Hemane Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the District Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur and Anr.

Lokesh Kishor Asekar vs Western Coalfield Limited, Thr. Chairman/ Managing Director, Nagpur and Another

Namdeo Marotrao Patil vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary for Higher Education Department, Mumbai and Others

Varad Shankar Thakur Vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member Secretary, Amravati and Another

Rajkumar S/O. Vithalrao Taskar Vs the Maha., State Power Generation Company Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Chairman and Managing Director and Ors.