Locus standi of the petitioner and the interpretation of statutory provisions were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

1. By this writ petition, the original petitioner has challenged order dtd. 30/12/2019 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati i.e. the revisional authority, whereby a revision application filed by respondent Nos.4 to 44 was allowed and an order passed by the District Deputy Registrar allowing the complaint of the original petitioner was set aside.

2. During pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner expired and an application has been moved by his son, seeking permission to be substituted in place of the original petitioner. This application is opposed by the respondents, on the ground that according to the respondents, even the original petitioner did not have any locus standi to initiate proceedings before the District Deputy Registrar and his son could certainly not be said to be a person entitled to be brought on record either as legal representative of the original petitioner or a person having locus to pursue the present writ petition.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of the writ petition are that on 11/01/2018, the original petitioner preferred a complaint before the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Shegaon, contending that the allotment of shops on licence to respondent Nos.4 to 44, some time in the year 1982-83 was illegal and unsustainable, as it violated the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing. (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, and the Rules framed thereunder. It was contended that mandatory procedure was not followed by the respondent-Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) and, hence, the allotment of shops deserved to be set aside and the APMC ought to take possession of the shops from respondent Nos.4 to 44. In this complaint, respondent Nos.4 to 44 were not made parties.

4. By an order dtd. 07/02/2017, the District Deputy Registrar allowed the complaint accepting the contentions raised by the complainant i.e. the original petitioner before this Court and directed the APMC to forthwith take action against respondent Nos.4 to 44 for recovering possession of the shops and the security amount deposited by such respondents be returned to them.

5. Aggrieved by the order of District Deputy Registrar, respondent Nos.4 to 44 filed revision application under Sec. 43 of the Act of 1963, inter alia, contending that the order of the District Deputy Registrar deserved to be set aside as they were not made parties to the proceedings and there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Respondent Nos.4 to 44 raised grounds of challenge on merits of the matter also. It is an admitted position that the complainant/original petitioner was not made party in the said revision application filed by respondent Nos.4 to 44.

7. By the impugned order dtd. 30/12/2019, the Divisional Joint Registrar allowed the revision application and set aside the order dtd. 07/02/2017 passed by the District Deputy Registrar. It was recorded that the respondent Nos.4 to 44, despite being affected parties, were not made respondents in the complaint filed before the District Deputy Registrar and, therefore, there was violation of principles of natural justice.

8. In the present writ petition, challenging the said order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, this Court issued notice for final disposal. The respondents have entered appearance through Counsel and the petition was taken up for hearing.

9. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, first invited attention of this Court to Civil Application No.651/2022, whereby son of the original petitioner has sought permission to be substituted in place of the original petitioner. It was submitted that the original petitioner had submitted the complaint before the District Deputy Registrar as an agriculturist, espousing the cause of agriculturists in the context of functioning of the respondent-APMC under the provisions of the Act of 1963 and the Rules fram