Writ Petition No. 10142 of 2025 · Bombaybench High Court · 2025

210142.25WP7]Bhivaji s/o.Motiram Chikhle, Age-61 years, Occu. Agri., R/o. Shelhal, Tq.Udgir, District-Latur. 8]Shyamrao s/o. Samrath Dawale, Age-55 years, Occu. Service, R/o. Daul, Tq. Udgir, District-Latur. 9]Dnyaneshwar s/o. Vishwambhar Patil, Age-50 years, Occu. Agri., R/o. Davangaon, Tq. Udgir, District-Latur. 10]Balaji s/o. Mhasnaji Devkatte, Age-56 years, Occu. Agri & Service, R/o. Dhadaknal, Post-Takali, Tq. Udgir, District-Latur. 11]Padmakar s/o. Manohar Ugile, Age- 49 years, Occu. Agri., R/o. Nalgir, Tq. Udgir, District-Latur. .. RESPONDENTS…Mr.Mahesh Deshmukh, Advocate h/f. Mr.U.L.Momale,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3–State. Mr.S.S.Gangakhedkar, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr.M.P.Tripathi, Advocate for respondent nos. 9 to 11. Mr.A.N.Irpatgire, Advocate for respondent nos.5 to 7. … CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKAR, J. Reserved on : 10.09.2025 Pronounced on : 26.09.2025

310142.25WPJUDGMENT : 1]The petitioner stands disqualified by the ordersof the authorities constituted under the MaharashtraAgricultural Produce Marketing [Development andRegulation] Act, 1963, as being the Chairman and memberof the APMC, Udgir. The Authorities constituted disqualifiedthe petitioner as a Chairman and member of APMC underthe provisions of Rule 10 (3) for having incurreddisqualification under Rule 10 (2) (ii) of the MaharashtraAgricultural Produce Market Committee [Election toCommittee] Rules, 2017 [for short ‘Rules of 2017]. By thepresent Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks quashment ofimpugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the respondentno.3 – District Deputy Registrar, Sambhajinagar,disqualifying the petitioner as member of respondent no.4–APMC, Udgir as well as quashment of the impugned orderpassed by the respondent no.1 – Divisional Joint Registrar,Latur, dated 31.07.2025, dismissing the appeal preferred bythe petitioner.

410142.25WP2]The learned counsel for the petitioner hasraised before me two fold submissions viz., first being legalsubmission i.e. power of the District Deputy Registrar toenter into the issue of disqualification of the petitionerunder Rule 10 (3) of the Rules of 2017. In this regard, thelearned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is representing ‘agriculturist’ constituency in themarket committee, so also, he is the Chairman of theCommittee. He further submits that Rule 10 (1) providesthat a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as or forbeing, a member of a Market Committee if he is disqualifiedunder sub-rule (a) to (k) of Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of2017. Sub-clause (ii) of Rule 10 (2) provides that a personshall not be chosen as a member, representing agriculturistsconstituency, if his main income is not from agriculture orpossesses a traders’, commission agents’ or broker licenseor has interest in a joint family or a firm which has atrader’s or commission agents’ or broker license. He furthersubmits that if a question arises whether a person is beingdisqualified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, such question

510142.25WPhas to be decided by the Director within thirty days of itsreference under Rule 10 (3) as provided. However, noauthority is constituted to adjudicate dispute as regardsdisqualification mentioned in Rule 10 (2) of 2017 Rules. 3]He further submits that even assuming such aquestion can be decided by the Director, the State hasissued Notification dated 12.02.2020 and the Director‘spowers under Rule 10 (3) to decide issue under Rule 10 (1)is delegated to the District Deputy Registrar, who is anAuthority, sub-ordinate to the Director. But in thenotification there is no delegation of power to decidedisqualification under Rule 10 (2). As such, he submits thatthe District Deputy Registrar has no power to decidedisqualification incurred under Rule 10 (2).4]It is further submission of the petitioner thatnotification dated 12.02.2020 was issued by the StateGovernment in exercising powers under Section 58 of theAct of 1963 whereby powers of Director of Marketing underRule 10 (3) and 27 of the Rules of 2017 are delegated to

610142.25WPthe District Deputy Registrar from the District to decidedisqualification and further powers of the State Governmentunder Rule 10 (5) of the Rules of 2017 to decide the appealare delegated to the concerned Divisional Joint RegistrarCo-operative Societies. 5]Relying upon the Notification dated12.02.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the disqualification incurred under Rule 10 (2) cannotbe adjudicated by the District Deputy Registrar as the powerof deciding disqualification under Rule 10 (2) is notdelegated to the District Deputy Registrar, as such, theDistrict Deputy Registrar cannot decide the disqualificationunder Rule 10 (2) before whom the complaint is made. Assuch, the complaint needs to be dismissed. 6]He also submits that the issue as to whether aperson is an ‘agriculturist’ is to be exclusively decided by the‘Director’ and the authority of the ‘Director’ to decidewhether a person is an ‘agriculturist’ cannot be delegated,as section 2 (2) of the Act of 1963 provides that whether a

710142.25WPperson is or is not an agriculturist, on reference the‘Director’ has to decide the same and his decision on theissue is final. 7]The learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat whether a person is an agriculturist and is residingwithin the area of APMC, the certificate issued by theTalathi would be conclusive proof that the candidate is anagriculturist and is residing in the market area in terms ofRule 21 (4) of the Rules of 2017. In any event if there is anyissue whether a person is an agriculturist, the same can onlybe adjudicated by the Director under Section 2 (2) of theAct of 1963. Second submission is on the factual aspect. 8]As regards legal submission canvassed, it isnecessary to note the relevant provisions of the MaharashtraAgricultural Produce Marketing [Development andRegulation] Act, 1963. Section 2 (b) & 2 (k) of the Act of1963, defines ‘agriculturist’ and ‘director’ as under :2.Definitions :(1)…

810142.25WP(b)“agriculturist” means a person who ordinarily byhimself or by hire labour or otherwise is engaged in theproduction or growth of agricultural produce which has notbeen processed, but does not include a trader, commissionagent, processor or [broker, an employee of Government orof any co-operative society or of a Market Committee, or apartner in trading firm or an industrial concern in or inrelation to agricultural produce although such trader,commission agent, processor or broker, an employee ofGovernment or of any co-operative society or of any MarketCommittee or a partner in trading firm or an industrialconcern] may also be engaged in production or growth ofagricultural produce;(k)"Director" means a person appointed as the Directorof Agricultural Marketing [***] for the State of Maharashtra[and includes any officer or officers empowered by the StateGovernment by notification in the Official Gazette to exerciseor perform such of the powers and functions of the Directorunder the provisions of this Act or rules or bye-laws madehereunder as may be specified in such notification;] 9]Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1963 provides asunder : (2)If any question arises whether a person is or is not anagriculturist for the purposes of this Act, the matter shall bereferred to the Director, and the decision of the Directorthereon shall be final.10]Relevant Rules dealing with disqualification arenoted below. Rule 10 of the Maharashtra AgriculturalProduce Market Committee [Election to Committee] Rules,2017 is as under : 10. Disqualifications of Committee member:(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as

910142.25WPor for being, a member of a Market Committee,-(a) if he has been convicted by a Court in India of anyoffence and sentenced to imprisonment for a termexceeding six months unless such disqualification hasbeen removed by an order of the State Government;or(b) if he has not attained the age of twenty-one years;or(c) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared bya Competent Court; or(d) if he is an undischarge insolvent; or(e) if he is a deaf-mute; or(f) if he has failed to [pay any dues, fees] or chargesdue to the Market Committee; or(g) if he is a servant of the Market Committee or ofGovernment or of a Local Authority or holds a licensefrom such Committee other than that of traders,commission agents, hamals or weighmen; or(h) if he has directly or indirectly or by his partnersany share or interest in any contract or employmentwith or on behalf of or under the Market Committee;or(i) if he has committed breach of the Act or the ruleor bye-laws made thereunder more than once, or(j) if he has failed to make payments to any seller orhis commission agent as required by the Act andrules.(k) if he is disqualified by the Act or the rules madethereunder.(2)A person shall not be chosen as a member, -(i) representing the trader's constituency,[***] if the license issued to him is cancelled,

1010142.25WPor suspended or not renewed;(ii) representing agriculturists constituency, ifhis main income is not from agriculture orpossesses a traders', commission agents' orbroker license or has interest in a joint familyor a firm which has a trader's or commissionagents' or broker license.Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-rule, a person shallbe deemed to be ordinarily residing in the market area, or heresides in such area for not less than one hundred and eightydays in a calendar year.(3) Where any question arises as to whether aperson has become subject to any of the disqualificationmentioned in sub rule (1), such question shall be decided bythe Director within thirty days of its reference. On thedecision of the Director or the decision in Appeal, as the casemay be, a person who is disqualified shall cease to hold officefrom the date of the decision by the Director or by theAppellate Authority, as the case may be. The MarketCommittee shall on receipt of such decision, fill up thevacancy by co-opting a person eligible for being elected as amember as provided under section 18 of the Act.](4) No decision on any such question shall begiven, unless the member has been given a reasonableopportunity of being heard.(5) Any person aggrieved by the decision of theDirector may, within thirty days from the date on which thedecision is communicated to the member, appeal to the StateGovernment.11]Rule 21 (4) of the Rules of 2017 is as under: 21.Presentation of nomination paper and requirementsfor valid nomination :(1)….(2)….(3)….

1110142.25WP(4)On presentation of a nomination paper, the ReturningOfficer shall satisfy himself that the candidate is anagriculturist residing in the market area or as the case maybe, a trader and that the name and the number in the list ofvoters of the [candidate,] proposers and seconders as enteredin the nomination paper are the same as entered in the list ofvoters :Provided that, the Returning Officer shall permit anyclerical or technical error in the nomination paper in regardto the said name or number to be corrected in order to bringthem in conformity with the corresponding entries in the listof voters and where necessary, any clerical or printing errorin the said entries shall be overlooked. [Provided further that, in case of election of fiftenagriculturists under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section13, it shall not be required to verify the name of thecandidate from the Voters’ list.]Explanation. - For the purpose of satisfying the ReturningOfficer that the candidate is an agriculturist, a certificate ofthe Talathi of the village where the candidate resides to theeffect that the person is an agriculturist as defined in clause(b) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act, and is residingin the market area shall be produced along with thenomination paper. The certificate shall be conclusive proofthat the candidate is an agriculturist and is residing in marketarea. 12]For ready reference, Notification dated12.02.2020 is quoted below :Lkgdkj] i.ku o oL=ks|ksx foHkkxeknke dkek jksM] gqrkRek jktxq: pkSd]ea=ky;] foLrkj] eqacbZ & 400 032fnukad %& 12 Qsczqokjh] 2020vf/klqpukegkjk"Vª Ñf"k mRiUu i.ku ¼fodkl o fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1963dzekad Ñzie- 0719@iz-dz-122@21&l- & egkjk"Vª Ñf"k mRiUu¼fodkl o fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1963 e/khy dye 58 vUo;s 'kklukl izkIr

1210142.25WPvlysY;k vf/kdkjkpk okij d:u egkjk"Vª Ñf"k mRiUu cktkj lfeR;k¼lferhph fuoM.kwd½ fu;e] 2017 ef/ky fu;e 10 ps vf/kdkj jdkuk dz-¼2½e/;s uewn vf/kdk&;kauk jdkuk dz-¼3½ uqlkj R;kP;k ukokleksjn’kZfoY;kizek.ks iznku dj.;kr ;sr vkgsr- lqphv-dz¼1½vf/kdkjh @ inuke¼2½vf/kdkj¼3½1ftYgk mifuca/kd]lgdkjh laLFkkegkjk"Vª Ñf"k mRiUu cktkj lfeR;k¼lferhph fuoM.kwd½ fu;e] 2017 ef/kyfu;e 10 pk mi fu;e 3 ps i.kulapkydkauk vlysys vf/kdkj2foHkkxh; lgfuca/kd]lgdkjh laLFkkegkjk"Vª Ñf"k mRiUu cktkj lfeR;k¼lferhph fuoM.kwd½ fu;e] 2017 ef/kyfu;e 10 pk mi fu;e 5 ps jkT;'kklukyk vlysys vf/kdkj egkjk"Vªkps jkT;iky ;kaP;k vkns’kkuqlkj o ukokuslgh@&¼dk- xks- oGoh½ 'kklukps milfpo13]It can be seen from the above quoted provisionthat an ‘agriculturist’ is a person who ordinarily by himselfor by hire labour or otherwise is engaged in the productionor growth of agricultural produce which has not beenprocessed. However, agriculturist would not include atrader, commission agent, processor or broker, an employeeof Government or of any co-operative society or of a MarketCommittee, or a partner in trading firm or an industrial

1310142.25WPconcern in or in relation to agricultural produce althoughsuch trader, commission agent, processor or broker, anemployee of Government or of any co-operative society orof any Market Committee or a partner in trading firm or anindustrial concern, who may also be engaged in productionor growth of agricultural produce. 14]The definition of agriculturist provides that aperson who ordinarily by himself or by hire labour orotherwise is engaged in the production or growth ofagricultural produce. He may also be engaged in otheractivities but he should not be a trader, commission agentetc. in relation to agricultural produce as defined above.Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1963 provides that if any issuearises whether a person, who is an agriculturist, the sameon reference has to be decided by the Director. 15]Rule 10 of the Rules of 2017 provides that if anagriculturist contest election from ‘agriculturistsconstituency’, his main income should be from agriculture.Rule 10 of the Rules of 2017 provides that a person shall

1410142.25WPnot be chosen as a member representing agriculturistsconstituency, if his main income is not from agriculture orpossesses a traders’, commission agents’ or broker license orhas interest in a joint family or a firm which has a trader’sor commission agents’ or broker license. 16]Thus, a person, who is an agriculturist, can bechosen as representing agriculturist constituency only if hismain income is from agriculture and not does incur otherdisqualification as noted in Section 2 (b) and in Rule 10(2). A person qualifying as an agriculturists in terms ofsection 2 (b) of the APMC Act, in order to contest theelections to the Market Committee from agriculturistsconstituency, as an additional qualification, his mainincome should also be from agriculture. This is possiblybecause the legislature contemplates that there should notbe any conflict of interest of the person being appointed asmember of managing committee of APMC. 17]Rule 21 (4) of the Rules of 2017 provides forpresentation of nomination paper and requirements for

1510142.25WPvalid nomination. It provides that on presentation of anomination paper, the Returning Officer shall satisfyhimself that the candidate is an agriculturist residing in themarket area or as the case may be, a trader and that thename and the number in the list of voters of the candidateproposers and seconders as entered in the nomination paperare the same as entered in the list of voters. 18]Explanation to Rule 21 (4) provides that for thepurpose of satisfying the Returning Officer that thecandidate is an agriculturist, a certificate of the Talathi ofthe village where the candidate resides to the effect that theperson is an agriculturist as defined in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, and is residing in themarket area shall be produced along with the nominationpaper. The certificate shall be conclusive proof that thecandidate is an agriculturist and is residing in market area. 19]Thus, Rule 21 (4) with its explanation providesthat the certificate issued by the Talathi that the person isan agriculturist and is residing within the market area

1610142.25WPwould be conclusive proof that he is an agriculturist and isresiding in market area for the purpose of filing of thenomination papers. At that stage, no further enquiry wouldbe contemplated by the Returning Officer. 20]It is stated that there were earlier proceedingsin which the petitioner’s nomination as an agriculturistresiding in the market area has been upheld by theReturning Officer and on an appeal by the AppellateAuthority. However, the proceeding at nomination stage issummary in nature and the findings of Returning Officer arenot conclusive and are not binding on the Director (in theinstant case District Deputy Registrar) at the stage ofdeciding disqualification under Rule 10 (3) of 2017 Rules. 21]From the definition of ‘Director’ as provided inSection 2 (k) of the Act of 1963, Director means a personappointed as the Director of Agricultural Marketing for theState of Maharashtra and includes any officer or officersempowered by the State Government by notification in theOfficial Gazette to exercise or perform such of the powers

1710142.25WPand functions of the Director under the provisions of thisAct or rules or bye-laws made hereunder as may bespecified in such notification. Thus, powers of the Directorcan be delegated to any other Officer by official notification.In the instant case, powers of the ‘Director’ to decidedisqualification under Rule 10 (3) of 2017 Rules aredelegated to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operativeSocieties and the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operativeSocieties to exercise powers under Rule 10 (5) by the Statein exercise of powers under Section 58 of the Act of 1963 todecide the disqualification under Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of2017. Thus, the District Deputy Registrar while decidingdisqualification under Rule 10 (3) of the Rules of 2017exercises the power of the Director under Section 2 (2) ofthe Act of 1963. Thus, the argument of the learned counselfor the petitioner that whether a person is an agriculturist,such issue can only be decided by the Director himself andnot by any other authority, in view of Section 2 (2) of theAct of 1963 cannot be accepted as the Director means aperson of whom the powers are conferred by State by

1810142.25WPnotification and includes any Officer.22]The complainant’s case is that the petitioner’sincome is mainly from other source as such he incursdisqualification in terms of Rule 10 (2) of the Rules of2017. Rule 10 (2) of the Rules of 2017 provides fordisqualification for being elected as a member of the tradersconstituency as well as agriculturists constituency. Rule 10(1) of the Rules of 2017 provides that a person shall bedisqualified for “being chosen as” or ‘for being’ a member ofthe market committee if he is disqualified by the Act or therules made thereunder (sub-rule k). Rule 10 (2) providesfor disqualification and such a disqualification can beenquired into by the Director under Rule 10 (3). It is to beseen that powers under Rule 10 (1) of the Director aredelegated to the District Deputy Registrar and as suchsubmission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that thedisqualification incurred under Rule 10 (2) cannot beenquired into by the District Deputy Registrar under Rule10 (3), is not a valid submission and is turned down. Rule

1910142.25WP10 (1) (k) provides for the disqualification incurred underthe Act and Rules. Thus, the disqualification incurred underRule 10 (2) (ii) falls within the ambit of Rule 10 (1) (k) andas such can be adjudicated under Rule 10 (3). Thus theDistrict Deputy Registrar in terms of Notification dated12.02.2020 can decide disqualification prescribed underRule 10 (2). 23]Thus, from the above discussion, it follows thatthe District Deputy Registrar in pursuance of theNotification issued by the State dated 12.02.2020 underSection 58 of the Act of 1963 can decide the issue whetherperson is an ‘agriculturist’ as he is conferred with thepowers as of the Director, so also, the District DeputyRegistrar can decide issue of disqualification as emanatingfrom Rule 10 (2) of the Rules of 2017. 24]Now coming to the factual issues raised. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner submits that theauthorities constituted has held that the petitioner is anagriculturist whose main income is from other source as he

2010142.25WPhas the interest in firm Sachin Protein Ltd. The DistrictDeputy Registrar held the petitioner to be associated withSachin Food Ltd., Sachin Proteins Ltd., so also, Sachin Dal.On an appeal being filed by the petitioner, the appellateauthority (Divisional Joint Registrar) has held that thepetitioner has no connection with Sachin Agro Ltd.,however, the Appellate Authority (Divisional JointRegistrar) has held that the petitioner is connected withSachin Proteins Ltd. It is also held that the petitioner’sincome is substantial from non-agricultural or that hisincome is from other than agricultural. The authority reliedupon the income tax returns of the petitioner for the year2020-2021, 2021-22 and 2022-23 and has held that thepetitioner’s income is from a non-agricultural as such onthese two grounds the petitioner is disqualified i.e. beingassociated with Sachin Proteins Ltd. and his main income isfrom sources other than agriculture for the preceding 3years. 25]The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken

2110142.25WPme through the complaint. He primarily submits that fromthe complaint it is seen that the only allegation levelledagainst the petitioner is that he is the partner of SachinAgro Foods LLP and has a trading licence in his name. It isalso stated that the petitioner has interest in firms likeSachin Dal, Sachin Agro Foods Ltd. and is not anagriculturists as defined under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Act,1963. It is also alleged that the petitioner holds a plot no.35in the APMC and he runs a business on the said plot and, assuch, his interest would run counter to the interest ofAPMC. Accordingly, the application was made to disqualifythe petitioner from the post of the Chairman and for beingthe member of the committee of respondent no.6. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner submits that on replybeing given and the matter being contested being DistrictDeputy Registrar has held that the petitioner is associatedwith Sachin Agro Foods and Sachin Proteins Ltd. However,the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that asregards Sachin Agro Foods is concerned, the appellateauthority has held in his favour that he is not associated

2210142.25WPwith it. As regards Sachin Proteins Ltd. is concerned there isno pleadings that he is associated with it. As such, there wasno occasion for him to respond to the same. However, theDistrict Deputy Registrar has suo-motu based on certaindocuments produced in the course of argument presentedbefore it has relied upon the same and rendered a findingthat the petitioner is associated in Sachin Proteins. Theappellate authority while examining the association of thepetitioner with Sachin Protein has held that there is noresponse given by the petitioner to the allegations to hisinterest in Sachin Proteins and, although there is nocomplain in that regard the authority concerned has suo-motu looked into it on the basis of documents produced andrendered a finding thereon. 26]The learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat such powers are not in existence with the adjudicatoryauthority. Disqualification being a serious matter specificnotice ought to have been given to the petitioner that he isassociated with Sachin Proteins Ltd. and that he would have

2310142.25WPresponded to the same as he has responded in cases of otherfirms. He submits that he is no more member of the jointfamily that there is a partition deed executed by the familyand that the petitioner is excluded from the firms of jointfamily and the petitioner is holding only agricultural assetsand his income is from agricultural sources. As regards theincome tax return, it indicates income earned from othersources which was at prior point of time. There werecommercial firms and business. However, agriculturalincome is not reflected in the documents produced. He hasplaced on record the audited income particularly he hasplaced the CA certificate and submits that his income ismore from agriculture. As such, he submits that on bothcounts i.e. the petitioner is associated with Sachin Proteins,so also, his income arising out of other sources other thanagricultural, on both these aspects the appellate authority(Divisional Joint Registrar) so also the original authority(District Deputy Registrar) has erroneously held against thepetitioner.

2410142.25WP27]The learned counsel for the petitioner reliesupon the judgment in the case of Pravin Laxman LokhandeV/s. Divisional Joint Registrar and others in Writ PetitionNo.7385/2025, decided on 15.07.2025 and submits thatadministrative action has to be based on strong andimpeccable material and cannot be founded onprobabilities. He relies upon the judgment in the case of M.Chinnasamy Vs. K.C. Palanisamy and others reported in[2004] 6 SCC 341 and submits that evidence ought not tobe accepted when there are no particulars provided. Hefurther relies upon the judgment in the case of Messrs.Trojan and Co. Vs. RM.N.N.Nagappa Chettiar) reported inAIR 1953 SC 235 and submits that the decision of a casecannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of theparties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found.Without an amendment, the Court was not entitled to grantthe relief not asked for. He further relies upon thejudgment in the case of National Textile Corporation Ltd.Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others reported inAIR 2012 SC 264 and submits that as a rule relief not

2510142.25WPfounded on the pleadings should not be granted. A decisionof a case cannot be based on ground outside the pleadingsof the parties. He also relies upon the judgment in the caseof Sadashiv H.Patil Vs. Vithal D. Teke and others reported in[2000] 8 SCC 82 and submits that principle-looking at thepenal consequences flowing from an elected councillorbeing subjected to disqualification and its repercussion onthe functioning of the local body as also the city or townshipgoverned by the local body the provisions have to beconstrued strictly. A rigorous compliance with theprovisions of the Act and the Rules must be shown to havetaken place while dealing with a reference under the Act. 28]Considering that the petitioner did not get anopportunity to effectively deal with the allegation of hisassociation with Sachin Proteins as the same were notpleaded in the complaint and also considering that entireaudit returns of the petitioner were not with the authorities,the impugned orders are set aside and the matter isremitted back to the respondent no.3 – District Deputy

2610142.25WPRegistrar to decide whether the petitioner has interest inSachin Proteins Ltd. and also whether his main income isfrom non-agriculture within a period of two months fromthe date of production of this order. The authorities mayalso decide other issues that may arise before it. 29]Parties to appear before the District DeputyRegistrar on 06.10.2025 so as to enable them to fix furtherdates in the matter. 30]With the above observations, the Writ Petition isdisposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC