The Tribunal's jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and the maintainability of the application under section 57 for recovery were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:
Natural Justice - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 - Section 57 - The court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim by the Commission agent/Broker individually under the provisions of the Act. The proceedings were entirely without jurisdiction and were quashed. The impugned Award was unsustainable in law due to violation of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a partnership business dealing in cotton, challenged an Award passed by the adjudicating Tribunal under section 57 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The dispute arose from the alleged non-receipt of payments for cotton sold by agriculturists through a Commission agent.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim by the Commission agent/Broker individually under the provisions of the Act. The proceedings were entirely without jurisdiction and were quashed. The impugned Award was unsustainable in law due to violation of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, maintainability of the application under section 57 for recovery, and jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim by the Commission agent/Broker individually under the provisions of the Act. The proceedings were entirely without jurisdiction and were quashed. The impugned Award was unsustainable in law due to violation of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition succeeded, and the impugned Award was quashed. No order as to costs was made.

JUDGMENT - V.G. PALSHIKAR, J.:---Heard Counsel.

2. This petition is directed against an Award passed by the adjudicating Tribunal appointed under section 57 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the Act'). Few facts, which are undisputed may be noted to understand the controversy involved in this case and the question of law of some importance raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

3. The petitioners is a partnership business dealing in cotton. The respondent No. 2 is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Darwha. The respondent No. 3 is working as a broker (Aadatya) or Commission Agent, within the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 2 Committee. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are agriculturists, who sell their agricultural produce within the Market Committee, using the respondent No. 3, as their Adatya or Commission agent. The respondent No. 1 is the Tribunal, constituted under section 57 of the Act. It is presided over by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Yavatmal.

4. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 through the agency of respondent No. 3, allegedly sold certain cotton, which is an agricultural produce, to the petitioners. It is then alleged that certain payments of the price of cotton was not received by the Commission agent and he, therefore, filed an application purportedly under section 57 of the Act, for recovery of this sum. The application is filed by the respondent No. 3 in his capacity as a Commission agent and not as a constituted agent or attorney of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the applications made for recovery by the respondent No. 3, there is a clear mention that the agricultural produce belonging to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was sold through the Aadatya of the respondent No. 3. It is, therefore, undisputed factual position that the agricultural produce belonged to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It was sold in the market Committee and then it is alleged that certain sums payable to them have not been paid by the petitioner. The application for recovery of sum under section 57 is not made either by respondent No. 4 or 5. The application as made the respondent No. 3 nowhere states that it is made by him for and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 5.

5. These applications were forwarded by respondent No. 2 committee to the respondent No. 1 Tribunal, for recovery and the Tribunal, after having issued initial notice, proceeded ex parte against the petitioners and awarded the sum claimed by the respondent No. 3. It is this Award, which is impugned by this petition by the petitioners.

6. Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the Award is unsustainable in law for the following reasons :-

(i) Principles of natural justice have been violated as the petitioner was proceeded ex parte without any cause and no opportunity was given to him to point out the non maintainability of the proceedings before the Tribunal.

(ii) The application under section 57 for recovery is not maintainable at the instance of a Commission agent and consequently, all further proceedings are vitiated.

(iii) The Tribunal constituted under section 57 of the Act, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim, not made by an agriculturist or by Agricultural Produce Market Committee.

7. In the instant case, the claim having been made by the commission agent the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the existence of the amount or recovery thereof. The proceedings, therefore, are liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction. The contentions raised by Shri Deshpande will have to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Act. Section 57 is, therefore, requires to be considered in extenso to examine the arguments made by the learned Counsel. Section 57 reads thus :-

“57. (1) Every sum due from a Market Committee to the State Government shall be recoverable as an arrear of l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document