High Court
Facts
*1* wp1598o16IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.1598 OF 20161.Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,Gangapur Market Yard,Gangapur.Through its Chairman/ Sabhapati.2.Secretary,Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,Gangapur Market Yard,Gangapur....PETITIONERS-VERSUS-1.M/s Devidas Ramrao Sarovar,through its Proprietor Vasantrao Ramrao Sarovar,Age : 51 years, Occ: Business,R/o Nutan Colony, Gangapur.2.Smt. Sumanbai w/o Devidas Sarovar,Age : 75 years, Occ : Business,R/o Nutan Colony, Gangapur.3.Kacheshwar Vinayakrao Rothe,Age : 45 years, Occ : Business,R/o Nutan Colony, Gangapur.4.Govind Devidas Sarovar,Age : 27 years, Occ : Business/ Service,R/o Nutan Colony, Gangapur.5.The Assistant Registrar,Cooperative Societies, Gangapur,District Aurangabad....RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
*10* wp1598o16No.5 Assistant Registrar, the appellate powers under Section 9(a)are with the Director, which are alleged to have been delegatedby the notification dated 05.09.1981. Perusal of the notificationdated 05.09.1981 shows that the powers of the Director havebeen delegated to the District Deputy Registrar, CooperativeSocieties and also to the Taluka Assistant Registrar ofCooperative Societies. On a specific query in this regard, thelearned AGP, on instructions from the competent authority,submits that the powers under Section 9(a) of the APMC Act areexercised by the District Deputy Registrar and also by the TalukaAssistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies depending uponcategorization of place as district place or taluka place. Thelearned AGP submits that both the authorities have powers.Although the petitioner APMC has raised the objection aboutsub-delegation of power, however, no such grievance was raisedbefore respondent No.5 Assistant Registrar and as such, thiscontention need not be considered.13.The position of law as reflected in the judgmentsrelied upon by the petitioner APMC is not disputed. It is also notdisputed that those who are delegated with powers, cannot
Arguments
*2* wp1598o16…Shri Harish S. Adwant, Advocate h/f Shri S.V. Adwant, Advocatefor the Petitioner/ APMC.Shri C.R. Thorat, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.Ms. V.N. Patil Jadhav, AGP for Respondent No.5/State.... CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.Reserved on : 25th March, 2025Pronounced on : 08th May, 2025JUDGMENT :-1.Heard. 2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by the consent of the parties.3.The instant petition filed by the Petitioner-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gangapur, (for short,hereinafter referred to as ‘APMC’) raises challenge to the orderdated 16.11.2015 passed by respondent No.5- Assistant Registrar,Cooperative Societies, Gangapur, allowing the appeal underSection 9(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing(Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short, hereinafterreferred to as ‘the APMC Act’) filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4/ *3* wp1598o16licencees.4.By the impugned order, respondent No.5 AssistantRegistrar has inferred that the applications for renewal oflicences submitted by respondent Nos.1 to 4 were althoughbeyond the time prescribed by law, however, considering the factthat the amount of arrears of licence fees was not refunded by thePetitioner APMC, the applications for renewal of licences wererequired to be accepted considering the provisions of clause (5-A) of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing(Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (for short, hereinafterreferred to as ‘the APMC Rules’).5.Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant petitionare stated below:-(a)Respondent Nos.1 to 4 had licences for working ascommission agents on the premises of the petitioner AMPC until2014-2015.(b)The petitioner APMC had published the publicnotice dated 10.02.2015 calling upon all the licencees to applyfor renewal of their licences by completing formalities on or *4* wp1598o16before 28.02.2015. The notice also mentioned the date of delayedsubmission as 31.03.2015. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have notsubmitted any application before these dates.(c)On 15.04.2015, respondent Nos.1 to 4 submittedtheir applications seeking renewal of their licences.(d)On 07.05.2015, the petitioner APMC rejected theapplications of respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the ground of theirfailure to submit the applications in time, in prescribed formatalong with necessary documents and fees.(e)Respondent Nos.1 to 4 challenged the rejection oftheir applications for renewal by filing common appeal beforerespondent No.5 Assistant Registrar.(f)By the impugned order dated 16.11.2015,respondent No.5 rejected the appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 to4.(g)Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitionerAPMC has filed the instant petition. *5* wp1598o166.Advocate Shri Harish S. Adwant holding forAdvocate Shri S.V. Adwant for the petitioner APMC has madevehement submissions by primarily contending that theimpugned order passed by respondent No.5 Assistant Registrar iswithout jurisdiction since the power to decide the appeal underSection 9(a) of the APMC Act lies with the Director, who is notauthorized to sub-delegate the power. Another limb of hiscontention is that the application for renewal cannot beentertained beyond the time limit provided by Rule 6(5-A) of theAPMC Rules. He submits that since the advertisement providedthe last date as 28.02.2015 and it also mentioned the date ofdelayed submission as 31.03.2015, therefore, there was noquestion of issuing directions to accept the application beyondthis date. He further submits that only because the amount ofRs.8200/- deposited by each of respondent Nos.1 to 4 was notrefunded by the petitioner APMC, could not be a circumstance toconclude that respondent Nos.1 to 4 became entitled forcondonation of their lapses. In support of his submission thatthere cannot be any sub-delegation, he relies on the judgments ofthe Honourable Supreme Court in the matters of A.K. Roy andanother vs. State of Punjab and others, (1986) 4 SCC 326 and *6* wp1598o16Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. And another vs. Employees’ StateInsurance Corporation, (1994) 5 SCC 346. In support of hissubmission that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, herelies on the judgment in the matter of Joint Action Committeeof Airline Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) and others vs.Director General of Civil Aviation and others, (2011) 5 SCC435.7.Per contra, Advocate Shri C.R. Thorat forrespondent Nos.1 to 4 vehemently submits that respondent No.5has properly appreciated the purport of the provision of Rule 6(5-A) of the APMC Rules and the imposition of late fee of 10% perday of default is in tune with the said rule. He submits thatrespondent Nos.1 to 4 have been working as commission agentsof the petitioner APMC since 1970-71 and are entitled forcontinuation of their licences. He submits that the petitionerAPMC has adopted hyper-technical approach while rejectingtheir applications by communication dated 07.05.2015. Hesubmits that the impugned order is passed on the basis of anindependent enquiry through the Divisional Officer as reflectedfrom the impugned order and it needs no interference. *7* wp1598o168.Advocate Ms. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, learned AGP forrespondent No.5, by referring to the affidavit in reply dated03.02.2025 justifies the impugned order. She submits that as perthe Government notification dated 05.09.1981, the powers underSection 9(a) of the APMC Act have been delegated to theAssistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. She, therefore,opposes the objection about the authority and jurisdiction ofrespondent No.5.9.Rival contentions thus fall for my consideration.10.Primary contention of the petitioner is based on Rule6(5-A) of the APMC Rules which provides specific dates as 28thor 29th February of every year as the date for submission ofapplication for renewal of licence. This rule also empowers theAPMC to accept the application beyond the last date on paymentof late fee at the rate of 10% of the licence fee per day of default.In the instant case, the advertisement specifically provided 28thFebruary, 2015 as the last date for submission of application forrenewal, which is in consonance with Rule 6(5-A). Theadvertisement also provided the date of delayed payment as31.03.2015, which is also in consonance with the date for *8* wp1598o16payment of late fee at the rate of 10% of licence fee per day ofdefault. Thus, it becomes clear that no application for renewalcould have been entertained beyond 31.03.2015. In the instantcase, respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted their applications forrenewal on 15.04.2015 and although claimed to have depositedthe amount towards their dues for transactions of 2014-2015 andlicence renewal fees of 2015-2016, this cannot be considered tohave conferred a right in them to claim renewal of their licences.Pertinent to note, Rule 6(5-A) empowers the Market Committeeto accept the applications beyond the time subject to deposit oflate fees and the direction to accept the renewal applicationsbeyond the date granted by the Market Committee amounts tofoisting the licencees upon the APMC. Rule 6(5-A) confers adiscretion on the Market Committee to accept delayedapplications, which cannot be termed to be a right of licencee tosubmit delayed application only because of readiness to pay latefee at the rate of 10% per day of licence fee. The impugned orderallowing the appeal of respondent Nos.1 to 4 subject to conditionof 10% late fee of the licence fee, amounts to foisting thelicencess i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 4 upon the petitioner APMC. *9* wp1598o1611.It is also surprising to see that respondent No.5Assistant Registrar has relied on some enquiry alleged to havebeen conducted by the Divisional Officer Shri B.M. Navtharconsidering some statements of the bank officials regardingdeposit of money by respondent Nos.1 to 4. Reliance on suchenquiry, which appears to be unilateral, cannot be made the basisto conclusively determine that the amounts deposited byrespondent Nos.1 to 4 were towards arrears of licence fees orother dues. The impugned order does not reflect that thepetitioner APMC was involved in the enquiry and had anyopportunity to participate in it. Only because respondent Nos.1 to4 were found to have deposited some amounts, respondent No.5got swayed away to conclude that even though the amounts werenot deposited in time, although the delay is attributed torespondent Nos.1 to 4, by invoking powers under Rule 6(5-A)the delay is condoned. On the basis of this reasoning, theimpugned order directs renewal of licences with retrospectiveeffect. The impugned order, therefore, defeats the purport of Rule6(5-A) of the APMC Rules.12.As regards the issue of jurisdiction of respondent
Decision
*11* wp1598o16delegate and particularly when the sub-delegation is notcontemplated under the APMC Act. In view of the fact that thecontroversy revolves around Rule 6(5-A) of the APMC Rules,the issue of jurisdiction of respondent No.5 Assistant Registrarvis-a-vis notification of 1981 need not be considered.14.In the light of the above mentioned factual and legalaspects, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and itdeserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, I pass the followingorder:-(a)The Writ Petition is allowed.(b)The impugned order dated 16.11.2015 passed byrespondent No.5 Assistant Registrar is quashed and set aside andconsequently, the appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 beforerespondent No.5 stands dismissed.(c)No order as to costs.15.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. kps ( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)