Shri Harishchandra Bharat Wani v. Shri Deepak Vishnupant Bharvirkar & Ors.

Respondent No.1 challenged this order in appeal under section 52-B of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The Director of Marketing has allowed that appeal and directed APMC to consider the request for transfer as made by respondent No.1 on 19th March 2010 on its own merits.

This communication and direction are questioned before this Court by the petitioner/ original owner. Submission is that communication dated 19th March 2010 by APMC is not an order which is amenable to appeal under section 52-A of the APMC Act. Further submission is that rejection of APMC on the ground communicated therein cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse.

Respective counsel appearing for the respondents do not accept this contention. They urged that it is the duty of APMC under the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder to maintain the market yard and to provide for various facilities. The shop blocks are constructed in discharge of that obligation. Because of that statutory duty only the persons like petitioner or respondent No.1 who are issued licences are permitted to occupy those blocks and hence transfer of those block inter-se is supervised by APMC. Attention is being invited to provisions of section 29(xiv) of the said Act for such purpose. 3/4 242.12-wp

Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply arguments submits that provisions of section 29 are very clear and APMC is not permitted to permit transfer of the blocks or galas.

The appeal has been allowed by the Director of Marketing and direction has been given to APMC to consider the application dated 10th March 2010 moved by respondent No.1 on its own merits.

It is to be noted that prior thereto the present petitioner himself has moved similar application. However, later on he has communicated that because of refusal of respondent No.1 to discharge his obligation the transfer should not be effected.

Thus, request made by present petitioner as also by respondent No.1 seeking transfer are very much pending. There is no joint request made by them to cancel such request or to ignore that request. It is, in this background, the Director of Marketing has treated the impugned communication dated 19th March 2010 as adverse communication rejecting application of respondent No.1 dated 10th March

2010. When APMC is required to maintain market yard and it is permitted to construct the shop blocks and allot it and impose terms and conditions for user thereof, the contention of the petitioner that it has no jurisdiction to take note of transfer cannot be accepted. The names of occupants need to be known and noted by APMC so as to enable it to discharge its obligation to monitor activities being conducted in such galas. 4/4 242.12-wp

The contention that communication dated 19th March 2010 does not amount to an order and appeal under section 52-B against it is not maintainable is, therefore, erroneous and liable to be rejected.

The appellate authority has rightly entertained appeal. Perusal of said order shows that appellate authority has not made any observation to the prejudice of the present petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to show to APMC as to how the terms have been violated by respondent No.1 and therefore should not succeed. He can also demonstrate that request made by him or by respondent No.1 for taking note of that transfer and for effecting mutation accordingly cannot be entertained. It is not necessary for this Court to make any observation in this respect as such observation may eclipse the contentions of rival parties before respondent No.2- APMC in this matter.

I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. No case is made out warranting interference. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs.

Needless to mention that all rival contentions shall be looked into by APMC in accordance with law. Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S.

(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)