IMPORTANT POINT
The rejection of a trading license application must be based solely on the criteria specified in the governing statutes, and cannot be influenced by unrelated financial obligations of family members.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties.

4. The petitioner applied for grant of license of trading/commissioning with Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short "APMC"), however the concerned Authority/Administrator, rejected both the applications only on the ground that the father and mother of the petitioner are due to pay the market fee to APMC with regard to the their trading license issued earlier and for that purpose recovery proceedings are already filed.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, however by the impugned orders dtd. 21/3/2023/ 9/3/2023, the first Appellate Authority while accepting the contentions raised by the Administrator, rejected the appeal.

6. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the grant of license is dealt with under Sec. 7 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation Act, 1963 (for short the "Act of 1963" hereinafter) and same is regulated by Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (for short the "Rules of 1967" hereinafter). He would submit, that the grant or refusal of such license is regulated only on the aspects as mentioned in the Rule i.e. (i) considering the solvency certificate, (ii) cash security or bank guarantee or third person's guarantee if a solvency certificate is not produced, (iii) capacity for providing adequate equipment for smooth conduct of the business and finally (iv) the conduct of the applicant, is also needs to be considered.

7. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that both the orders passed are by completely ignoring the powers under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1963 and Rule 6 of the Rules of 1967 and travelling beyond it by directing the petitioner to clear the dues of his father and mother in connection of the separate license for which the recovery proceedings are already pending in the Court. He submits, that such procedure for rejection of the applications is beyond jurisdiction of the concerned authority.

8. Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/APMC, would submit that the applications filed by the petitioner were considered by the concerned Authority and he himself by letter dtd. 3/11/2022 agreed to pay the dues of his parents for the purpose of considering the said applications and in case the license is granted to him.

9. However, Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/APMC, has fairly considered that the reasons disclosed in the impugned orders for rejection of the applications are not available with the concerned Authorities as provided under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1963 and Rule 6 of the Rules of 1967.

10. For the purpose of proper understanding, Sec. 7 of the Act of 1963 reads as thus:-

"7. Grant of licences (1) Subject to rules made in that behalf, a Market Committee may, after making such inquiries as it deems fit, grant or renew a licence for the use of any place in the market area for marketing of the agricultural produce or for operation therein as a trader, commission agent, broker, processor, weighman, measurer, surveyor, warehousemen or in any other capacity in relation to the marketing of agricultural produce, or may, after recording its reasons in writing thereof, refuse to grant or renew any such licence: [Provided that, if the Market Committee fails to grant or renew of refuse a licence within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application therefore, the licence shall be deemed to have been granted or renewed as the case may be.]

(2) Licences may be granted under sub-sec. (1) in such forms, for such periods, on such terms and conditions and restrictions (including any provisions for prohibiting brokers and commission agents from acting in any transaction both as buyer or seller, or on behalf of both the buye