JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---Writ Petition No. 5003 of 1998 is filed by the Members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jalna, challenging the Order, dated 23-11-1998 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalna, bifurcating the market area of Jalna Market Committee into two separate Market Committees, namely, Jalna and Badnapur, in exercise of the powers under section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act").

2. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jalna had a sub-market yard at Badnapur. The District Deputy Registrar, Jalna, appointed himself to be the Administrator in place of the earlier Administrator, by an Order, dated 14-9-1993. On 1st August 1994, the newly elected Market Committee assumed office. On 17-2-1995, the Director of Marketing wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Market Committee, Jalna, asking him to submit a report about the proposal to bifurcate the Jalna Market Committee into two Market Committees, namely, Jalna and Badnapur. The said letter was placed before the Market Committee for consideration on 28-4-1995 and the Market Committee opined that they oppose the proposal for the bifurcation. This was resolved by Resolution No. 8 and intimated to the Director of Marketing, as well as to the State Marketing Board established under section 39-A of the said Act. Since the members of the Market Committee were apprehending bifurcation, ignoring the views expressed by them. Writ Petition No. 5658 of 1995 came to be filed before this Court; and this Court directed that, if the bifurcation order is passed, it shall not be given effect to for a period of 15 days. The District Deputy Registrar issued an Order on 23-11-1998 bifurcating the Market Committee, which has been impugned in this writ petition.

3. The Notification bifurcating the Market Committee, Jalna, is challenged mainly on the following grounds:--

i) Notification is mala fide inasmuch as it is issued to favour the near relations of political leaders and to suit their political convenience.

ii) Order under section 44 of the said Act can only be passed after calling objections, if any, and considering them. Procedure, as is laid down under sections 3 and 4 of the said Act, applies to the exercise of powers under section 44 of the said Act, and such a procedure will have to be followed while power under section 44 of the said Act is to be exercised.

iii) Present Market Committee has taken huge advance for developmental activity and the developmental activity will come to a halt in the market area and the bifurcation of assets and liabilities will not advance the developmental activity in the market area

iv) There is no effective consultation with the State Marketing Board, as is required under section 44 of the said Act.

4. Writ Petition No. 4366 of 1998 challenges an order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur, on 11-9-1998, bifurcating Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Latur, into two separate Market Committees, for Latur and Renapur. The order is challenged on the ground that preliminary notification, calling objections was not issued, and without following the procedure, an analogous one to the procedure laid down in sections 3 and 4 of the said Act, no power can be exercised under section 44 of the said Act. It is also contended that the ten villages, which are now part of Chakur Agricultural Produce Market Committee are being included in the proposed Renapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee: but, neither these villages, nor Chakur Agricultural Market Committee, is consulted before shifting of these villages from one market area to another market area.

5. Writ Petition No. 4436 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 4912 of 1998 challenge order dated 30-9-1998 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Parbhani, bifurcating Agricultural Produce Mark

Click Here to Read the rest of this document