The main legal point established is that the court upheld the order of suspension of the Market Committee under section 45(1) of the Act, finding several misdeeds and violations of the Act to be proved, and dismissing the arguments of disproportionate action and lack of effective consultation.

JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

1. Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. Kale learned Government Pleader waives service for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. P.S. Dighe learned advocate for respondent No. 2, Mr. K.B. Jadhavar learned advocate for respondent No. 5 as also learned advocate Mr. B.B. Bhise holding for Mr. N.R. Pawade waive service for the respondent No. 6. At the request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioners are questioning legality of the order passed by the respondent No. 3 District Deputy Registrar under section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (herein after the Act) dated 26-7-2021 thereby superseding the Market Committee at Murum, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad of which the petitioners were the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members.

3. The petitioners were elected on 19-2-2016 for a term of 5 years. By a specific order dated 17-3-2021 by invoking the powers under section 14(3) of the Act, the State Government extended its term for a period of six months because of the pandemic. The intervenor who himself is an agriculturist lodged several complaints with the State Government complaining about the mismanagement of the respondent No. 6 Market Committee by the petitioners. The respondent No. 3 District Deputy Registrar issued a show cause notice to them on 13-5-2019. He also constituted a three member committee to inquire into the allegations. Even before any such inquiry was held the respondent No. 3 District Deputy Registrar issued a second show cause notice dated 9-9-2019. Some of the petitioners responded by tendering explanation. After concluding the hearing the respondent No. 3 District Deputy Registrar forwarded a proposal to the respondent No. 2 which is a Board constituted under section 39-A for consultation, as is contemplated under section 44 of the Act. The respondent No. 2 Board by its communication dated 11-5-2021 conveyed its approval. By the impugned order the respondent No. 3 District Deputy Registrar concluded that there were several misdeeds and violations of the provisions of the Act and by the impugned order under section 45(1) directed suspension of the petitioners’ Committee.

4. Following were the charges levelled against the petitioners which were inquired into and have been held to be proved, in the impugned order:

(i) The petitioners’ Committee failed to take appropriate steps for preventing sale of agricultural produce below Minimum Support Price (MSP) and thereby committed breach of the provisions of section 32(d) of the Act and Rule 94(d)(2) of the Rules framed thereunder.

(ii) The petitioners’ Committee failed to take effective steps to prevent recovery of prohibited trade allowance and thereby violated section 39 of the Act and even failed to take steps after they were put to notice as is required by section 40(1)(e), about existence of such practice.

(iii) The petitioners’ committee failed to initiate action against the erring agents who were indulging in illegal practice in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and instead allowed the Secretary of the respondent No. 6 Market Committee to initiate such action when he was not empowered to do so and thus were guilty of violating the provisions of section 8, section 32(a) of the Act and Rule 94(d)(3) of the Rules.

(iv) The Petitioners’ Committee failed to take disciplinary action against the Secretary of the Respondent No. 6 Committee in spite of specific instructions having been issued to it under section 40(1)(e).

(v) Failing to take appropriate steps for implementation of a Government Loan Scheme.

5. The learned advocate Ms. Talekar initiated her submission by endeavoring to demonstrate as to how none of the charges were actually proved and in the absence of which neither the respondent No. 2 Board could have accorded consent nor could the respondent No. 3 District Deputy Registrar h