vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11553 OF 2025 VASANT WITH ANANDRAO IDHOL INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.29650 OF 2025 Digitally signed by VASANT 1. Hukumchand Govindrao Aamdare )

ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2025.09.23 Age : 68 Years, Occ. : Agri., R/o. )

20:18:22 +0530 Civil Line, Nagpur, District – Nagpur )

2. Ashok s/o. Govindrao Dak )

Age : 58 Years, Occ. : Agri., ) R/o. Hanuman Chowk, Majalgaon, ) Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed )

3. Jaydatta Sitaram Holkar, )

Age : Adult, Occ. : Agri., ) R/o. At Post Lasalgav, ) Tq. Niphad, Dist. Thane. )

4. Mina Mahadu Rathod )

Age : 45 Years, Occ. : Agri. & ) Household, R/o. Pishor, ) Tq. Kannad, ) Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar )

5. Shilpa Shivaji Patil )

Age : 45 Years, Occ. : Agri. & )

Household, R/o. Sangli ) … Petitioners V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra )

Through the Secretary ) Marketing Department, ) Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, ) Mumbai - 32 )

2. The State Co-operative Election )

Authority, Maharashtra State, ) Pune, Ground Floor, ) Old Central Building, Pune. )

3. The Director of Marketing, )

Maharashtra State, Pune 3rd Floor ) New Central Building, Pune – 001 )

4. The Deputy Registrar and District )

Election Officer Co-op. Societies, ) Thane, Gavdevi Bhaji Market, )

Thane (W)-602

5. Mumbai Agricultural Produce )

Market Committee, ) Administrative Building, ) Sector – 18, Vashi, )

Navi Mumbai – 400 703 ) … Respondents Mr.Nitin Gaware Patil with Mr.Divyesh Jain for the Petitioners.

Mr.B.V. Samant, Addl.GP with Mr.Ketan Joshi ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent – State.

Mr.Umeshchandra Yadav for Respondent No.4.

CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE &

SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT (Per Sandesh D. Patil, J.): -

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally.

2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners are praying for a declaration that inaction on the part of the Respondents in not deciding proposal dated 7^th August, 2025 for extension of the term of the office of the Managing Director of Respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners also prayed for a writ of mandamus to extend the term of the office of the Managing Director for a further period of six months starting from 31^st August, 2025. There were other reliefs prayed as well.

3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, Respondent No.3 passed the order dated 29^th August, 2025 appointing Respondent No.6 as an Administrator.

4. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the first meeting of Respondent No.5 was held on 31^st August, 2020. It is contended by the Petitioners that as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC Act), 1963, the term of five years of Respondent No.5 – APMC was to expire on 31^st August, 2025. It is further contended that the Respondents ought to have taken steps to hold elections of Respondent No.5 within the prescribed time, however, the Respondents did not take steps for holding elections. The then Managing Committee of Respondent No.5 had entered into correspondence with Respondent No.4 for holding elections. It is contended that by virtue of Section 14 of 1963 Act it was necessary for Respondent No.1 to decide the proposal submitted by Respondent No.5 within the stipulated time. The Petitioners contended that the Petitioners and Respondent No.5 have taken active steps for compiling preliminary voters list and have also deposited election fund with Respondent No.4 by way of Demand Draft of Rs.15,00,000/-. It is contended that inspite of all steps taken by the Petitioners, the Respondents have not held election and have simply sat over the application / proposal of the Petitioners. The Respondents have over looked Section 14 as well as Section 15 of the APMC Act.

5. The Petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of Babasaheb Apparao Akat & Ors. vs