SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
DATTATRAO MARUTRAO GITE and ORS – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT DY REGISTRAR CO OP SOCIETIES and ORS – Respondent
WP 1822/2004



Advocates:
['V J DIXIT', 'MUNDHE SUBHASH V', '', 'G P', 'L V SANGIT']

1 WP1822.2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1822 OF 2004

1.

Dattarao S/o Marutrao Gite,

Age : 40 years, Occ: Agriculturist

R/o: Hivarkheda, Tq. Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

2.

Kiran Vasantrao Vattamwar,

Age: 34 years, Occ: Agriculturist

R/o: Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.

3.

Mrs. Suvarnabai Madhukarrao Pawar,

Age: 32 years, R/o: Assegaon,

Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.

...Petitioners..

Versus

1.

District Dy. Registrar

Cooperative Societies,

Parbhani District, Parbhani.

2.

Director of Marketing,

Maharashtra State,

Administrative Building,

Pune.

3.

State of Maharashtra,

Through its Secretary,

Cooperative and Textile Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

4.

Agricultural Produce Market Committee,

Jintur, through its Secretary,

Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.

..Respondents..

--------------------

Mr Sushant V. Dixit, Advocate for petitioners

Mr K. J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3

Mr P. V. Mandlik, Sr. Counsel with Mr. S. V. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent No. 4

Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Intervenors No. 5 to 7

--------------------

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1823 OF 2004

1.

Ramchandra s/o Balasaheb Deshmukh,

age 40 years, occupation agriculture,

2 WP1822.2004

residing at Marwadi, taluka Jintur,

district Parbhani.

2.

Sau. Shakuntala Bhagwan Zanvar,

age 35 years, occupation household,

resident of Bori, taluka Jintur,

Dist. Parbhani.

...PETITIONERS...

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra,

Through Ministry of Marketing,

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The Director of Marketing,

Maharashtra State, Pune.

3.

The District Deputy Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Parbhani.

4.

Agricultural Produce Market Committee,

Jintur, district Parbhani,

Through its Secretary

5.

Agricultural Produce Market Committee,

Bori, taluka Jintur, district Parbhani.

Through its Secretary.

6.

Babanrao Baburao Magar,

Age : 45 years, Occu. Agri.

R/o. Kasar, Tal. Jintur, District – Parbhani.

7.

Jankabai Anantrao Chaudhari,

Age: 44 years, Occu. Agriculture and household,

R/o Bori, Tq. Jintur, District-Parbhani.

8.

Ajay Ashokrao Chaudhary,

Age : 33 years, Occu. Agri director of VKS Society,

Bori, Tal. Jintur, District-Parbhani.

...RESPONDENTS..

--------------------

Mr Umakant Wagh, Advocate h/f Mr A. V. Hon, Advocate for petitioners

Mr K. J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3

Mr M. V. Ghadge, Advocate for respondent No. 5

Mr P. V. Mandlik, Sr. Counsel with Mr. S. V. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent No. 4

Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Intervenors No. 6 to 8

--------------------

3 WP1822.2004

CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE &

V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : DECEMBER 16TH, 2014.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : FEBRUARY 26TH, 2015.

JUDGMENT: (PER A. V. NIRGUDE, J.)

1.

These petitions challenge notification dated 1st March, 2004,

issued by District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Parbhani,

thereby bifurcating Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jintur into

two market committees namely; Jintur and Bori. The petitioners are

members of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jintur

(hereinafter shall be referred to as “APMC”). This APMC was

established in the year 1961. The petitioners contended that

provisions of Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce

Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short “the

Act”) are not complied with before taking such decision. Section 44 of

the Act reads as under:-

44.

Amalgamation or division of Market Committees.

(1)

Where the State Government is satisfied that for

securing efficient regulation of marketing of any agricultural

produce in any market area 3[and for ensuring the economic

viability of the Market Committee], it is necessary that two or

more Market Committees therein should be amalgamated or

any Market Committee therein should be divided into two

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top