SUNIL KAILASHCHANDRA RAWAT, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION : AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF SHITALWADI, TAHSIL : RAMTEK, DISTRICT : NAGPUR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETING, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI 32

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission, as a notice for final disposal is served on all the respondents.

(2.) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the State Government could have passed the order, bifurcating the Ramtek Mouda Agricultural Produce Market Committee into Mouda Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Ramtek Agricultural Produce Market Committee under Sec. 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 is the question that falls for consideration in this writ petition.

(3.) The petitioners are the agriculturists from Ramtek and Mouda talukas. The petitioners claim to be the functionaries of Ramtek Mouda APMC as they market their agricultural produce in the said market yard. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the State Government bifurcating Ramtek Mouda APMC into Ramtek APMC and Mouda APMC. According to the petitioners, Ramtek Mouda APMC has a robust market and the resources as well as the supply of the produce in the Market Committee would be divided by the impugned order of bifurcation, as a result of which the petitioners would be greatly affected. In 2001 the local leaders of the talukas had sought for the bifurcation of the Ramtek Mouda APMC and a proposal was forwarded by them to the then Honourable Chief Minister on 03/10/2001. In pursuance of the said request, the District Deputy Registrar, Nagpur forwarded the proposal for bifurcation to the State Marketing Board, as required by the provisions of Sec. 44 of the Act on 27/01/2004. On 01/03/2004, the State Marketing Board, vide resolution No. 10B opined that the bifurcation of Ramtek Mouda APMC was not economically viable. The decision of the State Marketing Board was conveyed to the State Government, on 10/05/2004. The issue in regard to the bifurcation of the Market Committee again cropped up in the year 2010, in view of the request from some agriculturists and it was decided in the meeting chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and Marketing, on 03/02/2011 that Ramtek Mouda APMC should not be bifurcated. In Jan., 2014, when the District Deputy Registrar made about 14 queries to the Market Committee, the bifurcation of the Market Committee being one of them, the Market Committee of Ramtek Mouda passed a resolution on 12/03/2014 that the Committee should not be bifurcated. Representations were again received by the District Deputy Registrar on 12/08/2014 and 01/11/2014 from some agriculturists from Mouda for the bifurcation of the Market Committee. In pursuance of the said representations, proposal was forwarded by the District Deputy Registrar to the State Marketing Board, on 19/12/2014 seeking the opinion of the Board, as required by the provisions of Sec. 44 of the Act. On 22/10/2014, the Board resolved by a resolution passed by circulation that the Market Committee should be bifurcated. On 23/12/2014, the State Marketing Board informed its decision to the District Deputy Registrar and on the same day, i.e. 23/12/2014, the District Deputy Registrar passed the impugned order bifurcating the Ramtek Mouda APMC into Ramtek APMC and Mouda APMC. Before the notification under Sec. 44 of the Act was published by the State Government, Administrators were appointed on Ramtek APMC and Mouda APMC, on 24/12/2014. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the District Deputy Registrar, bifurcating the Market Committee under Sec. 44 of the Act. The said order is impugned in the instant petition.