Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1154
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Alok Aradhe, CJ. Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Agri Sprayers T.I.M Association & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 With Interim Application (L) No. 17079 of 2025, Public Interest Litigation No. 25 of 2025, With Interim Application (L) No. 1240 of 2025 Interim Application (L) No. 1337 of 2025
Decided On : 22-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, and Ms. Druti Datar, Mr. Joel Carlos with Mr. Rupesh Geete and Ms. Priya Dangat i/b Satyaki Law Associates
For the Respondent:Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Advocate with Smt. P.H. Kantharia, Govt., Pleader and Mr. Milind More, Addl. GP, Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Advocate with Mr. Milind More, Addl. GP for Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Joshi and Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Mr. Vinod Joshi, Mr. Bhushan Chandrakant Joshi with Ms. Sunanda M. Konkar, Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Harit, Mr. Niket Harit and Ms. Pooja Harit i/b Manoj Harit & Co.
Authority of the State to amend subsidy schemes under agricultural productivity laws was upheld, confirming that distinct programs can operate independently without violating prior established procedures.
Headnote:(A) Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 and 12 March 2024 - Direct Benefit Transfer scheme for farmers - Challenge to amendments and procurement processes for agricultural items - Petitioners argue unfair deletion of items from subsidy eligibility and prefer cash transfer for farmer purchases, while Respondents defend changes asserting new objectives independent from prior schemes. (Paras 1-30)
(B) Principles of administrative law - Validity of legislative actions - The Court held that the State Government has the authority to implement new schemes for designated purposes, emphasizing significance of S.A.P for productivity enhancement, independent of earlier subsidy frameworks. (Paras 22-24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are manufacturers of agricultural sprayers challenging the Government Resolution from March 2024 for deleting certain items from direct cash subsidy eligibility, arguing this undermines farmer benefit and supports contractors instead of local trade. The Resolution leads to confusion between distinct subsidy schemes. (Paras 1-6, 10-11)
Findings of Court:
The State has acted within its rights in modifying the procurement process necessary for agriculture productivity, with the court finding no merit in claims of arbitrary action or violation of prescribed procedures. (Paras 24-30)
Issues: Main issues include whether the deletion of specific items from the subsidy scheme contravened procedural requirements, the significance of transferring procurement advantage from individual farmers to organizations, and the locus standi of the petitioners. (Paras 1-3, 22-24)
Ratio Decidendi: The State's actions in implementing a special productivity plan for agricultural items were deemed lawful and separate from prior subsidy frameworks. The petitioners lacked standing to contest these changes as they represented private interests rather than broader public concerns. (Paras 25-28)
Result: Writ Petition and Public Interest Litigation dismissed, with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on Petitioners for causing delay to public projects.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to government resolution on subsidy deletion (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. details on tender processes and challenges (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. petitioners argue against government resolution compliance (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. state's defense of the government resolution and its objectives (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court’s analysis of government resolutions (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. no error in government's policy decisions (Para 24 , 25) |
| 7. locus standi issue among petitioners (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. court's final conclusion and imposition of costs (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. These petitions challenge Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 which contemplates procurement and supply of five items (fertilizers, pesticides and agriculture equipment) to the farmers under special program for enhancement of productivity. Petitioners complain that the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024 has the effect of deleting the items Battery Operated Sprayers, Nano Urea, Nano DAP, Metaldihide Pesticide and cotton storage bags from Schedule-A of Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016, by which amounts towards purchase of the said items were to be directly paid to the farmers under Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT). Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the State Government in directing procurement of the said items for supply thereof to the farmers through Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (MAIDCL) and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited (MSPCL). Petitioners insist that the subsidy for procurement of the said five items must be paid in cash to the farmers so as to enable them to purchase the same from local traders rather than procuring and supplying them through agencies like MAIDCL, MSPC, etc.
2. Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 is filed by TIM Association which is an Association of manufacturers of sprayers and by Padgilwar Agro Industries, a manufacturer of manual sprayers, power sprayers and battery sprayers challenging the Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024. Initially, the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 had also challenged tender process implemented by the State Government for procurement of Battery Operated Spray Pumps as well as work order issued to MAIDCL. However, prayers challenging the tender process and work order have been deleted from Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2024 and the challenge is now restricted only to the GR dated 12 March 2024.
3. PIL No. 25 of 2025 is filed by three agriculturists challenging the GR dated 12 March 2024, to the extent of deletion of battery operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldihide pesticide and cotton storage bags from Schedule-A of GR dated 5 December 2016 as well as all the consequential decisions taken in pursuance of Government Resolution dated 12 March 2024. The PIL petition also challenges implementation of tender processes for procurement of the aforesaid items.
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the State Government has formulated various schemes under which subsidies are admissible to the beneficiaries. By Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016, the State Government formulated a policy of directly transferring the subsidy amounts into the accounts of the beneficiaries for purchase of the listed items rather than procuring and supplying them. The Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 enumerated 44 items for which DBT scheme was to be implemented. By Government Resolution dated 12 April 2018, the State Government constituted a committee for considering deletion of any item from the list of Government Resolution dated 5 December 2016 and for redressal of complaints about implementation of the scheme. By Government Resolution dated 13 September 2019, the State Government deleted the item “seeds” from the list of GR dated 5 December 2016.
5. By GR dated 23 October 2023, the State Government granted administrative approval for implementat
