Grampanchyat Umarkhoja through Its Member Shamrao a Choudhari and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.D. Ostwal for petitioners, learned AGP Mr. S.B. Narwade for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Advocate Mr. Vishal Bagal for respondent No.4.

¶13

2 The petitioners are challenging the order dated 02.09.2025 issued under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee Regulation Act, 1963 issued by District Deputy Registrar,

¶14

2

¶15

910_WP_12040_2025

¶16

Cooperative Societies, Hingoli as well as Gazette Notification for September 04-10 of 2025 published in that regard and also seeking injunction restraining respondents etc. from acting upon the impugned order dated 02.09.2025.

¶17

3 Learned Advocate for petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos.1 to 10 are the Grampanchayats and petitioner Nos.11 to 16 are Multipurpose Co-operative Societies. All petitioners were members of erstwhile Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Sirsam (Bk). Petitioners had opposed amalgamation of APMC, Sirsam with APMC, Hingoli by filing objections. APMC, Hingoli was established way back on 22.06.1933 to cater the needs of 120 villages. APMC, Sirsam was established by bifurcation from APMC, Kalamnuri on 06.05.2008. APMC, Sirsam caters the needs of 56 villages. Initially Board of Administrators was appointed by the State Government till 2014. Thereafter Administrator came to be appointed till the date of order of amalgamation. The then Administrator, APMC, Sirsam submitted a proposal for amalgamation of APMC, Sirsam with APMC, Hingoli for about six reasons. Mainly, the ground was that there was no response from the traders of village Sirsam despite his efforts and the infrastructure could not be developed. Respondent No.3 sought response from APMC, Hingoli about the said proposal. Learned Advocate for petitioners submits that due to

¶18

3

¶19

910_WP_12040_2025

¶20

misconception about amalgamation and incomplete information about the financial liabilities of APMC, Sirsam, APMC, Hingoli had passed a resolution about no objection for amalgamation. Respondent No.3 thereafter forwarded said proposal to respondent No.2 - Marketing Board for taking necessary action pursuant to Section 3 of the APMC Act. Respondent No.2 had then directed respondent No.3 to submit a detailed report under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act. Respondent No.3 submitted the report within three days recommending the amalgamation. Respondent No.2 passed resolution No.7 in its meeting held on 08.05.2025 and granted permission for amalgamation. However, APMC, Hingoli came to know about precarious financial status of APMC, Sirsam and, therefore, passed resolution No.4(1) in its meeting held on 21.06.2025, thereby taking back the No Objection given earlier. The said resolution was then communicated to the authorities. That objection was not taken into consideration by respondent No.2. Despite the objection for amalgamation when the impugned communication/order has been passed, petitioners have no alternative. Petitioners also contend that the representative of people in Kalamnuri, 30 Grampanchayats and 16 Multipurpose Co-operative Societies within the jurisdiction of APMC, Sirsam had submitted the objection, however, all those objections have not been considered. Proper opportunity of hearing has not been given without following procedure for holding inquiry for considering objections as

¶21

4

¶22

910_WP_12040_2025

¶23

provided under Rule 4 (2) and (3) of APMC Rules of 1967. The inquiry officer i.e. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hingoli had submitted the inquiry report dated 29.08.2025 and rejected all the objections raised by 30 Grampanchayats and 16 Multipurpose Co-operative Societies.

¶24

4 According to petitioners, as on today daily near about 1000 to 2000 quintal agricultural products such as Soybean, Tur, Turmeric etc. are available for seeling at Sirsam, however, due to non functioning of APMC the private traders are purchasing those products at local levels and thereby there is loss to the farmers. In order to protect the interest of people who are coming within the jurisdiction of APMC, Sirsam such amalgamation ought not to have been approved.

¶25

5 Learned Advocate for petitioners has taken us through the documents on record which include the resolutions of objections passed by each Grampanchayat, various resolutions about the objections and the decisions taken along with the Government Notification. With the help of regulation, APMC and the Rules framed thereunder he submits that those rules have not been followed.

¶26

6 Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 appears to be supporting the petitioners, taking into consideration the objection raised by APMC,

¶27

5

¶28

910_WP_12040_2025

¶29

Hingoli at a later point of time. Learned AGP supports the action and submits that the documents on record are clear enough to show that the procedure has been adhered to.

¶30

7 Here, it is to be noted that even as per the pleadings, APMC, Sirsam came to be established on 06.05.2008, as a result of bifurcation from APMC, Kalamnuri. Now, it is stated that APMC, Sirsam was established to cater the needs of 56 villages. The board was established till 2014, but thereafter till amalgamation it was managed by Administrator. Petitioners are intentionally silent on the point, as to why Administrator was required to be appointed. There is no statement by petitioners that at any point of time immediately after the appointment of Administrator they had challenged the appointment of Administrator. We can certainly infer that as the Board was not competent or was not taking proper steps to manage the affairs of APMC, Sirsam, the Government was constrained to appoint an Administrator. Now, the said Administrator had taken the steps and forwarded the proposal of amalgamation.

¶31

8 Certainly, when the amalgamation was proposed under Section 44 of the APMC Act, the Rules should be followed. Doctrine of natural justice should be observed and accordingly, it appears that when the objections,

¶32

6

¶33

910_WP_12040_2025

¶34

copies of which are produced at page Nos.31 to 46, were there the Grampanchayats were heard. We are constrained to observe that various Grampanchayats have passed the resolution of objection for amalgamation, but the copies of their resolutions would show that the resolutions are in the handwriting of only one person or the same person. It appears that it was the joint objection and the possibility of taking the decision on the political front or with ulterior motive cannot be ruled out. As regards hearing is concerned, the report would show that the Grampanchayats were heard in the entire process. Now, learned Advocate for petitioners submits that respondent No.3 had not called for the actual record of the Grampanchayat. The report dated 29.08.2025 states that the concerned authority had perused the copy of resolution of various Grampanchayats. While recommending the amalgamation it has been specifically stated that APMC, Sirsam never started functioning since the date of its establishment. In specific words it is stated that -

¶35

^^ojhy loZ ckcho:u df"k mRiUu cktkj lferh fljle cq- ph LFkkiuk fnukad 06-05-2008 jksth >kysyh vlwu toGikl 17 o"kkZiklwu lnj cktkj lferh fu/kh vHkkoh dk;kZUohr >kysyh ulY;keqGs] o ;kiq<sgh fu/kh miyC/krsph dqByhgh 'kD;rk ulY;keqGs ;k cktkj lferhps dk;Z{ks=ke/khy 'ksrd&;kaP;k ekykyk pkaxyk Hkko feGkok] cktkj lferhP;k lksbZlqfo/kk feGkO;kr o 'kklukP;k loZ ;kstukapk ykHk feG.ksps n"Vhus vkiys dk;kZy;kus dk<ysY;k varjhe vf/klwpusoj ?ks.;kr vkysys vk{ksi QsVkG.ks ;ksX; gksbZy vls ek>s er vkgs-^^

¶36

7 910_WP_12040_2025

¶37

If they had not started functioning since the date of establishment in 2008, it had not received the financial support from the Government. At that time none of the petitioners appears to have made any agitation and asked the Government to give those facilities. Now, when amalgamation has been made or order only to raise the objection, the present petition has been filed. We do not find this to be a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

¶38

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶39

agd

Grampanchyat Umarkhoja through Its Member Shamrao a Choudhari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Grampanchyat Umarkhoja through Its Member Shamrao a Choudhari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sangita Ramkrishna Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt Kamalbai Prakash Ambhore vs the State of Maharashtra

Khandu Aaba Tambe and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Yogesh Devidasrao Digraskar vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abdul Aqeel Abdul Jameel vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal Jaywantrao More vs the State of Maharashtra and Others