JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---Rule. Mr. R.M. Patne, Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the facts and circumstances, the matter was taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside an order dated January 22, 2003 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik, respondent No. 2 herein, under section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").

3. The case of the petitioners in the petition is that petitioner No. 1, Kalwan Agricultural Produce Market Committee, is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 16 are elected members of petitioner No. 1 Committee. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 is the District Deputy Registrar to whom the powers have been delegated by the State Government in respect of amalgamation or division of Market Committees. Respondent No. 3 is the Director of Marketing, Pune, an authority having supervisory control over Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Respondent No. 4 is the State Agricultural Marketing Board constituted under section 39-A of the Act.

4. According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 Committee was established in 1971 and was having a market area of 179 villages in the territorial limits of Kalwan Taluka in Nashik District. The Managing Committee of petitioner No. 1 was constituted in accordance with provisions of section 13 of the Act. On or about June 23, 1999, a notification was issued under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 by which certain villages were carved out from Kalwan Taluka and another Taluka named Deola Taluka came to be established. Out of 179 villages which were with petitioner No. 1, 29 villages were included in Deola Taluka and remaining 150 villages continued to remain in market area of petitioner No. 1.

5. According to the petitioners, with a view to achieving political goal, proposal for division of petitioner No. 1 Committee into two Committees started in the year 1999 in purported exercise of power under section 44 of the Act and a decision was taken to divide petitioner No. 1 Committee into two Committees. The proposal and the decision were strongly objected by petitioner No. 1 as well as by the villagers which compelled the State Government to revoke the decision. Thereafter, there was no proposal by the respondents to make division of petitioner No. 1 Committee into two Committees.

5-A. There was a fresh election of Managing Committee in 2001 and petitioner Nos. 2 to 16 were duly elected as members of Managing Committee. The tenure of the Managing Committee is five years. It is alleged by the petitioners that since persons of their choice were not elected, respondents again stated initiating action of division of petitioner No. 1 Committee into two separate Market Committees. When the petitioners came to know about such move, they objected. In spite of such objection and without consulting the petitioner Committee, or the State Marketing Board and without affording opportunity of making representation against such action, a decision was taken by respondent No. 2 under section 44 of the Act, by which petitioner No. 1 Market Committee was divided into two Market Committees, (i) Kalwan Agricultural Produce Market Committee; and (ii) Deola Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The said action is illegal, contrary to law, not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and inconsistent with several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. The petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court by filing the present petition un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document