The Court held that the DDR had reached satisfaction about the two conditions namely, for effective marketing and economic viability, and had recorded his satisfaction with sufficient reasons in support thereof. The Court also held that the consultation with the State Marketing Board was effective and meaningful and that the DDR had taken into account the opinions expressed by the APMCs and the State Marketing Board before passing the final order.

D.B. Bhosale, J.

Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard with consent of learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Advocates on record for the respondents waive notice on their behalf.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is directed against the notification dated 17-1-2009 issued by respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Buldhana, (For short "the DDR"), in exercise of the powers under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short "the Act"), whereby he has provided for amalgamation of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Motala (for short "AMPC, Motala") into the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Malkapur (for short "APMC, Malkapur").

3. Petitioner No.2-APMC, Malkapur and respondent No.4-APMC, Motala are constituted under the provisions of the Act. Initially APMC, Malkapur was the only Market Committee in existence, which in 1986 was bifurcated into APMC, Malkapur and APMC, Motala. The market area of APMC, Malkapur extends to Tahsil-Malkapur, whereas the market area of APMC Motala extends to Tahsil-Motala. The Managing Committees of both the Market Committees had passed resolutions dated 19-8-2005 and 10-10-2005 for amalgamation as provided for under Section 44 of the Act. Though such resolutions were passed, the APMC, Motala on 30-12-2005 withdrew their resolution dated 19-8-2005.

4. The elections of petitioner No.2-APMC, Malkapur were held in March 2008 and in their first meeting held on 19-4-2008 petitioner No.1 was elected as its Chairman. Since the process of amalgamation had commenced before the elections, it appears that on 04-7-2008 they also passed a resolution withdrawing their earlier resolution dated 10-10-2005. After the second resolution (dated 27-9-2008) was passed by APMC, Malkapur, they informed the same to the DDR and requested him not to amalgamate the APMC, Motala with them.

5. Before the second resolution dated 04-7-2008 was passed by the APMC, Malkapur, on 13-11-2007 the DDR had already forwarded a proposal for amalgamation to the State Marketing Board for consultation as envisaged by sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act. The State Marketing Board, accordingly, on 4-12-2007 passed a resolution recommending amalgamation and informed the same to the DDR. Thereafter, till September, 2008 the DDR did not pass any order, and as a result thereof a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3994/2008 was filed by Balkrishna Shankar Nafde and four others, seeking direction to the DDR to consider and decide the proposal for amalgamation pending before him within time frame. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18-9-2008. It would be advantageous to reproduce the said order for better appreciation of the challenge in the present writ petition. The order dated 18th September, 2008 reads thus :-

"Heard Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, and Shri Patil, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3."

"In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioners is regarding inaction on the part of the respondent No.5-District Deputy Registrar in taking a decision in respect of proposal submitted by the Agricultural Produce Market Committees for amalgamation in view of Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act. It is submitted that proposal is about amalgamation of A.P.M.C., Motala with A.P.M.C.,

Malkapur."

"In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition with direction to respondent No.5 to take a decision in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard, if not taken earlier, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar, be given to the learned Government Pleader." (emphasis supplied)

6. Though, in Writ Petition No. 3994/2008,