High Court
Legal Reasoning
{4} wp 6321.24 R.odtnotes that petitioners shall file their affidavit to the main application.8.The proceeding dated 16.4.2024 shows that arguments wereadvanced on behalf of petitioners and others on preliminary objection,contending that respondent No.4 authority is not competent to hear anddecide the application. Even the written notes of arguments were filedon this particular issue. Even original applicants/present respondents no6 to 8 advanced their submissions on preliminary objection accordinglymatter was posted for further arguments on 29.5.2024. Thereafter,Roznama dated 30.5.2024 records that during last hearing, arguments onpreliminary objections were heard. The respondents no. 6 to 8 argued onmain application, whereas, original petitioners submitted written noteson the preliminary objection. It appears that submission was made onbehalf of petitioner that they have already submitted their writtenarguments on preliminary objection and after decision on the same,matter may be considered for disposal of main application . The last 3lines records as under :-lcc] oknh vkf.k izfroknh ;kaps fouarhuqlkj+ vk{ksi“vtkZlg” lnj izdj.k fu.kZ;klkBh jk[kqu Bso.;kr ;srvkgs- 8.On careful perusal of these lines, prima facie, it appears thatthe word “vtkZlg” appears to have been amended by scoring the word“vtkZoj” and by overwriting it by word “vtkZlg”.9.Considering overall contents of the Roznama, it transpiresthat although Respondent No. 6 to 8 had concluded their submissions onpreliminary objection on earlier date i.e. on 16.4.2024, then they
Arguments
{1} wp 6321.24 R.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 6321 OF 2024DNYANESHWAR VISHWAMBHAR PATIL AND OTHERS….Petitioner VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS…..Respondent …..Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh h/f. Ms. Sarnaik Priyanka Y., Advocate for the PetitionerAGP for Respondents : Mr. K.B. JadhavarAdvocate for respondent Nos. 6 and 8 : Avinash N. IrpatgireAdvocate for respondent No.7 : Mr. Parag V Barde Advocate for respondent No.5 : Mr. Shailesh S. Gangakhedkar. CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATE :- 29TH JULY, 2024. FINAL ORDER :-1.The petitioners have impugned the judgment and orderdated 26.6.2026 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, CooperativeSocieties, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, thereby disqualifying thepetitioners under Rule (3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural ProduceMarketing Committed (Election of Committee) Rules, 2017 ( hereinafterreferred to as the APMC Election Rules, for sake of brevity) beingDirectors of the respondent No.5 – APMC, Udgir.2.Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing for thepetitioners submits that the petitioners are agriculturists as their mainsource of income is from agriculture. They were entitled to be elected asDirectors of respondent No.5 – APMC. The petitioners were accordingly {2} wp 6321.24 R.odtelected by majority of votes. The political opponents of the petitioners,i.e. respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were defeated. They filed an applicationunder Rule 10(ii) of the APMC Election Rules against the petitioners andrespondent No.9, seeking disqualification on the ground that they are notagriculturists, hence, not entitled to continue as Directors of the APMC.The petitioners were served with notice of the proceeding initiated byrespondent Nos. 6 to 8. Petitioners on appearance filed a preliminaryobjection questioning maintainability of the application filed by therespondents no 6 to 8 as well as authority of the respondent No.3 i.e.District Deputy Registrar, Latur to exercise powers under Rule 10(ii) ofthe Election Rules.3.Latter on, proceeding was transferred to respondent No.4 –District Deputy Registrar, Chhatrapati Sambhanijagar on application ofrespondent No.9. On transfer of proceeding, the matter was posted fororal arguments on 16.4.2024. The petitioners requested to hear anddecide the preliminary objection raised by petitioner No.3. However,surprisingly, respondent No.4, on 26.6.2024, decided the mainproceeding itself and disqualified the petitioners without grantingadequate opportunity of hearing.4.Learned AGP raised strong objection that petitioners havealternate and efficacious remedy of appeal against impugned order,hence writ petition may not be entertained. However, since thepetitioners have raised issue as to non-observance of principles of naturaljustice, particularly, while rendering the final decision, after hearing theparties on preliminary objection, this Court had issued notices and calledfor the original record so as to ascertain the contention of the parties on {3} wp 6321.24 R.odtthe limited aspect.5.Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, learned advocate for the petitionerinvites attention of this court to the copy of the Roznama of theproceeding and submits that at various places, there is scoring andoverwriting. The Roznama dated 16.4.2024 shows that the petitionerswere insisting for hearing on preliminary objection and then pass finalorders on main application, if necessary. Accordingly, parties were heardon the preliminary objection. He submits that even on 30th May, 2024only respondents have made their submissions on main application and itwas expected that at first instance decision would be rendered on thepreliminary objection.6.Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents submit thatthe petitioners adopted various tactics to prolong the proceeding. Thepreliminary objection was pressed into service since 3rd April, 2024,although there no such provision. On 16.4.2024 the parties were heardon preliminary objection and then matter was adjourned for hearing onthe main application. On 30.5.2024, when the respondents advancedsubmission on main application, the matter was closed for orders.7.I have minutely examined Roznama of proceeding since4.3.2024 when the matter was transferred to respondent No.4. Itappears that after transfer of the proceeding to respondent No.4, noticeswere issued to the parties and the matter was posted on 2.4.2024. TheRoznama dated 3.4.2024 shows that a preliminary objection wastendered on behalf one on petitioner No. 3 raising objection to the verymaintainability of the proceeding before respondent No.4. The Roznama
Decision
{5} wp 6321.24 R.odtadvanced their final submissions on 30.5.2024. The proceeding nowheredepict that petitioners ever made their submissions on main applicationfor disqualification. Roznama nowhere records that proceeding wasclosed on main application, after hearing arguments from both contestingparties. The matter appears to have been closed for decision on theapplication on preliminary objection. However, impugned order takesfinal decision on main application for disqualification without specificindication that Respondent No. 4 was intending to take final decision.10.In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that thematter requires to be remitted back to the respondent No.4 at the stageof hearing on main application. As rightly pointed out by the learnedadvocates for respondents, there is no provision to decide the proceedingof disqualification in a piecemeal manner. It would be, therefore,appropriate that parties shall tender their final written submissions onthe date of appearance and after considering the submissions advanced,the respondent No.4 shall render his final decision on the mainapplication including points raised as preliminary objection at a time.Hence, the following order :- O R D E R.[a]The writ petition is partly allowed;[b]The impugned order dated 26.6.2024 passed by respondent No.4 in Application No. 1148 of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside;[c]The matter is remitted back to respondent No.4, who shall permit the petitioners to file their reply to the original application as well as written notes of arguments if any and after hearing all parties on merit, pass further orders in accordance with law; {6} wp 6321.24 R.odt[d]Parties to appear before respondent No.4 on 12th August, 2024 and submit their Reply/written submissions if any[e]Respondent No.4 shall hear all parties and pass further orders within a period of four weeks thereafter and communicate his decision to all concerned;[f]Writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. [S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR] JUDGE grt/-