Ashok Dattatraya Gadve Vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Chikhli, Thr. Its President, Apmc and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ashok Dattatraya Gadve Vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Chikhli, Thr. Its President, Apmc and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 04/10/2023 of respondent No.3-Tribunal quashed and set aside as against petitioner Ashok Dattatraya Gadve only; proceedings remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law; parties to appear before the Tribunal on 13th October, 2025 without fresh notice; order left undisturbed against Santosh Manohar Gade, Ankush Manohar Gade and Sudarshan Bhagwan Yelwande; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of recovery passed against the petitioner as surety/guarantor for the defaulters in proceedings No.1/2023 under Section 57(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 can be sustained despite his contention that he was never served with notice in those proceedings. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no documentary evidence to support the contention that the notice was served on the petitioner by hand delivery and refused by him.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 04/10/2023 passed by respondent No.3-Tribunal is quashed and set aside as against the petitioner Ashok Dattatraya Gadve, and the proceedings are remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication of the same afresh in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The order is not set aside against respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said proceedings, viz. Santosh Manohar Gade, Ankush Manohar Gade and Sudarshan Bhagwan Yelwande; the parties shall appear before respondent No.3-Tribunal on 13th October, 2025, and fresh notice for appearance is not necessary.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, S. 57(3) — Recovery order dated 04/10/2023 passed by respondent No.3-Tribunal against petitioner as surety/guarantor for defaulters in proceedings No.1/2023 — Petitioner's plea of non-service of notice; respondents' assertion of refused hand-delivery unsupported by documentary evidence — Impugned order quashed and set aside as against petitioner Ashok Dattatraya Gadve alone; proceedings remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law — Order left undisturbed against defaulters Santosh Manohar Gade, Ankush Manohar Gade and Sudarshan Bhagwan Yelwande — Parties directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13th October, 2025; fresh notice for appearance held unnecessary — Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs.

2025:BHC-NAG:9571

1 / 2

32.wp.8284.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Writ Petition No.8284 of 2023

Shri Ashok Dattatraya Gadve

vs.

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Chikhli, through President, APMC, Chikhli and others

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

Mr. Bhavin Suchak a/w Mr. V.D. Ruparelia, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Rahul Kalangiwale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

CORAM: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2025.

Heard.

An order of recovery of amount is passed against the present petitioner on the ground that he was a surety/guarantor for the defaulters, who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the proceedings bearing No.1/2023 initiated under Section 57(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.

The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that he was never served with the notice in the said proceedings and yet an order of recovery is passed against him. The learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 states that the notice was sought to be served on the petitioner by hand delivery, but he has refused to accept the notice. However, there is no documentary evidence to support the contention.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 04/10/2023 passed by respondent No.3-Tribunal is quashed and set

32.wp.8284.23

2 / 2

aside as against the present petitioner-Ashok Dattatraya Gadve. The proceedings are remanded as against the petitioner for adjudication of the same afresh in accordance with law.

It is clarified that the order is not set aside against respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said proceedings viz. Santosh Manohar Gade, Ankush Manohar Gade and Sudarshan Bhagwan Yelwande. The parties shall appear before respondent No.3-Tribunal on 13^th October, 2025. Parties to note that fresh notice for appearance is not necessary.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

*sandesh