JUDGMENT - SAMBRE W.M., J.:—Heard parties.

2. Rule returnable forthwith.

3. Petitioner claims that he is a Broker and therefore the Award passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Narkhed, dated 15-1-1990 holding him to be a Commission Agent is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was given a licence as an Adtiya by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (A.P.M.C.), Narkhed, on his application dated 24-9-1988. The petitioner gave an undertaking that he will abide by the Rules and Regulations of the A.P.M.C. The licence was issued to him under Rule 6(2) of the A.P.M.C. (Regulation) Rules, 1967, wherein the conditions for working as Adtiya have been prescribed. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Broker/Dalal and has nothing to do with the designation of Adtiya/Commission Agent. On the complaint made by the agriculturists/horticulturists, the respondent-A.P.M.C. passed a resolution authorising the Secretary to file a dispute under section 57 of the A.P.M.C. (Regulation) Act, 1963. Accordingly a dispute was raised and the Secretary of the A.P.M.C. represented the A.P.M.C. before the Authorised Officer. An Award came to be passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Narkhed, on 15-1-1990 holding the petitioner liable to pay to 16 agriculturists through the Secretary of the A.P.M.C., Narkhed, an amount of Rs. 22,342/-. This Award passed is under challenge in this petition.

5. It is contended that the petitioner being a Broker is entitled only for commission. The petitioner as a Broker has to approach to the businessmen for sale of goods of the agriculturists convincing the businessmen about the quality of material and fetch the maximum price from the businessmen for the agriculturists. He is supposed to get the price of the goods from the businessmen and thereafter after deducting his commission has to pay to the agriculturists. In the petitioner itself the petitioner himself was represented to be a Broker and further stated that he is getting the commission and therefore he was not liable to pay the price directly to the agriculturist without recovering the same from the businessmen who are the purchaser of the goods. In fact the dispute was required to be filed against the businessmen. The businessmen have not been made party to the present dispute under section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act and therefore he was not under obligation to pay the purchased price to the agriculturists on his own. Petitioner contended that he has placed on record the resolution passed by the respondent No. 1-A.P.M.C. at Annexure-2 and the copy of the dispute filed under section 57 of A.P.M.C. Act at Annexure-I. The copy of the written statement before the Assistant Registrar is at Annexure-3 wherein the petitioner has stated that the actual purchaser is the businessman and the businessman has to pay the amount and it is the duty of the businessmen to pay the purchased price through this Broker to the agriculturists. It is also stated that he received part payment which has been paid by him to the agriculturists while the outstanding amount due is to be recovered from the businessmen and the entry to that effect in the bill has been communicated to the A.P.M.C. Therefore the petitioner is not responsible or liable to pay the balance amount to the agriculturists. Moreover, the businessmen have not been joined as a party and for non-joinder of the party the dispute is liable to be dismissed. Annexure-4 gives the detail about the outstanding of the agriculturists to be recovered from the petitioner.

6. From the above facts it will be seen that the petitioner is mainly challenging the Award on the ground that he being the Broker and not the Commission Agent is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount as per the Award. He further contended that in fact there is no claim made by the agriculturists nor the dispute has been filed by the agriculturists and therefore the resolution

Click Here to Read the rest of this document