ASHOK BHUMANA CHEPURVAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) The Petitioner claims to be a trader, being a commission agent. He has a shop in the market yard of the Respondent No.5 Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Basmat. The term of the market committee expired some time in November, 2006, however, the same was extended up to 30th September, 2008 by the appropriate Authority vide order dated 23rd March, 2007, 14th November, 2007 and lastly on 25th May, 2008. Admittedly, there is no further extension to the committee after 30th September, 2008. Nevertheless, the same committee continued to manage the affairs of the Respondent No.5 committee. It is stated that the committee published a list of 327 members who were either traders or commission agents or shop keepers in B class during the year 20052006. This list was published on 12th August, 2006. It is stated that the Petitioner took objection regarding renewal of license in respect of 113 members named in the said list. According to the Petitioner the said members were neither resident of Basmat within the area of operation of the Respondent No.5 Committee nor were engaged in the business in the said area during the relevant period. That is evident from the fact that none of them paid the market fees during the relevant period.

(3.) In support of the stand that the said persons were not residents of Basmat, the Petitioner relies on the letter dated 14th January, 2009, issued under the signature of Chief Executive Officer of Municipal Council, Basmat Nagar, which mentions that 49 persons named by the Petitioner were not residents of Basmat Nagar. Insofar as assertion that the named persons have not paid market fees during the relevant period, reliance is placed on the communication dated 22nd January, 2009 issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Respondent No.5 Committee addressed to the Petitioner. Along with the said communication, a chart indicating the payment of market fees during the period 20042005, 20052006 and 20062007 against the name of each of the 153 persons was enclosed. As per the communication dated 22nd January, 2009, it is obvious that the Respondent No.5 accepts the position that out of 153 persons named by the Petitioner, only 2 have paid market fees for all the three years and 12 paid the market fees for one year or more for the relevant period between 20042005 to 20062007. Whereas, at least 139 persons have not paid the market fees at all during that period.