Yogesh Kaduba Patil and Another vs Directorate of Marketing Board, Maha. State, Pune and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Yogesh Kaduba Patil and Another vs Directorate of Marketing Board, Maha. State, Pune and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief adjudicated on merits; petition disposed of as the grievance did not survive; contentions on merits kept open and parties at liberty to raise appropriate grievance, if situation arises.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.3, Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Malkapur, could be permitted/granted extension of service beyond the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of the developments (Resolution dated 17.12.2025 of APMC, Malkapur declining further extension, and communication dated 22.01.2026 of the Directorate of Marketing Board rejecting the further proposal for extension), the grievance raised in the instant petition does not survive and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Key takeaways

The contentions on merits are not dealt with and are kept open.ratio¶¶16
The parties are at liberty to raise appropriate grievance, if the situation arises.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.), Writ Petition No. 3103 of 2025, decided 03.02.2026 — The petitioners challenged the Order dated 02.06.2025 of the Director of Marketing Board, Maharashtra State, Pune, whereby Respondent No.3, Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Malkapur, was to be granted extension of service beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years, allegedly contrary to Rule 13 of the APMC Service Rules providing that no employee could be employed beyond 60 years. During hearing, the APMC, Malkapur tendered its Resolution dated 17.12.2025 (marked 'X') resolving not to grant further extension of six months to Respondent No.3 after completion of 60 years, and the learned AGP placed on record a communication dated 22.01.2026 (marked 'Y') of the Directorate of Marketing Board rejecting the further proposal for extension beyond 60 years on account of breach of the condition of the extension conveyed by the letter dated 02.06.2025. In view of these developments, the petitioners' grievance was held not to survive; the Court disposed of the writ petition, expressly leaving the contentions on merits open and granting the parties liberty to raise appropriate grievance if the situation arises.

2026:BHC-NAG:1926

1 46-WP-3103-2025.odt

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

WRIT PETITION NO.3103 OF 2025

Yogesh Kaduba Patil & Anr. Vs. Directorate of Marketing Board & Ors.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. H.R. Dhumale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr. Ashish Chaware, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Harish Dangre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 14, 16 and 17.

CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J . DATED : 03rd FEBRUARY, 2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

The controversy involved in the petition is with respect to the extension of service of the respondent No.3 as Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Malkapur beyond the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although Rule 13 of the APMC Service Rules provided that no employee could be permitted to be in employment beyond the age of 60 years, the respondent No.3 was likely to be granted extension beyond the age of 60 years and hence, the petition was filed challenging the Order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Director of Marketing Board, Maharashtra State, Pune.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has tendered across the bar a Resolution dated 17.12.2025

2 46-WP-3103-2025.odt

passed by the APMC, Malkapur, by which it is resolved that further extension of six months to the respondent No.3 after completion of 60 years may not be granted. A copy of Resolution dated 17.12.2025 is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification purpose only.

Learned AGP has also placed on record a communication dated 22.01.2026 issued by the Directorate of Marketing Board, Maharashtra State, Pune addressed to the APMC, Malkapur thereby, conveying that on account of breach of condition of extension by letter dated 02.06.2025, the further proposal for extension beyond 60 years is rejected. A copy of letter dated 22.01.2026 is taken on record and marked as “Y” for identification purpose only.

In view of these developments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance raised by petitioner in the instant petition does not survive. The contentions on merits are not dealt with and are kept open. 7. The parties are at liberty to raise appropriate grievance, if situation arises. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁