: 1 : wp.8181.2009 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8181 OF 2009 Pramod @ Bandukaka s/o. Purushottam Bacchav .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.B. Raghuvanshi with Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for the Petitioner Mr.A.I. Patel, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 12, 2011 P.C.: 1. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the notification dated 20.6.2009 issued by the District Deputy Registrar bifurcating the Respondent No.6 market committee u/s 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act (for short, `APMC' Act). 2. Civil application No.2428 of 2009 and 2436 of 2009 filed for intervention were allowed as per the order dated 1.10.2009. It appears that prior to filing of this petition, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition : 2 : wp.8181.2009 No.7333 of 2009 and while disposing off the said petition on 26.8.2009, this Court had directed that any orders passed against the petitioner by the respondents thereby bifurcating the present Respondent No.6 committee, the same shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks and this order was continued even in this petition vide the order dated 1.10.2009. On 20.1.2010, by a reasoned order, the petition came to be admitted and the interim order granted on 1.10.2009 was directed to be continued. Special Leave Petition No.10832 of 2010 was filed challenging the order dated 20.1.2010 and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.3.2010 in terms of the following order: “Permission to file special leave petition is granted. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. We are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition, which is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the High Court. However, we request the High Court to consider the prayer, if any, made on behalf of the petitioner herein or by any other respondent in the writ petition for early hearing of the case and hope that such prayer will receive favourable consideration. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.” 3. Accordingly, the petition was listed from time to time and we have heard the parties at length. The decision to bifurcate the Respondent No.6 committee which is a subject matter of challenge could not be implemented. The extended term of the present Managing : 3 : wp.8181.2009 Committee is likely to expire on 19.11.2011. U/s 14(3) of the APMC Act, where the general elections of the members of a committee could not be held for reasons beyond the control of the committee, before the expiry of the term of office, the State Government may by an order published in the official gazette, extend from time to time, the term of office of any such committee for a maximum period of one year. The original term of 5 years of the present committee has expired on 25.5.2010 and the committee continues on the basis of the orders passed by the State Government u/s 14(3) of the APMC Act. 4. The petitioner is the Chairman of the present Managing Committee of Respondent No.6 and the committee in its written submissions dated 20.7.2009 to the Respondent No.4 had opposed the proposal to bifurcate the said committee on various grounds and more particularly on the ground of financial losses. However, Respondent No.4 submitted his report proposing bifurcation, on 1.8.2009. The Marketing Board (Respondent No.3) in its meeting held on 4.8.2009 accepted the said report and consequently the impugned notification was issued. 5. The notification has been challenged on various grounds including the ground that there was no effective consultation with : 4 : wp.8181.2009 Respondent No.3 as is mandated under section 44 of the APMC Act. It was also urged that no reasons were set out by Respondent No.4 as to why the submissions made on behalf of Respondent No.6 opposing the bifurcation were not considered. 6. The interveners as well as Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have opposed the petition and it was urged before us that there were no procedural infirmities when the impugned notification was issued and the bifurcation of Respondent No.6 would be viable, economical and beneficial to the farmers as well as other members of the said committee. 7. We are satisfied that the proposal to bifurcate Respondent No.6 requires fresh consideration by all the parties concerned and therefore, it was agreed by them that a fresh proposal will be moved by Respondent No.4 by following the due procedure under the Act and the Rules or the Government Regulations and submitted to Respondent No.3 for effective consultations. Undoubtedly Respondent No.4 will consult the concerned committee/committees before he forwards the proposal to Respondent No.3. 8. Hence, Respondent No.4 may submit a fresh proposal and complete this process if so required within a period of six weeks from : 5 : wp.8181.2009 today and submit the same to Respondent No.3. The final decision after consultation with Respondent No.3 shall be taken on the said proposal as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from today. The petition is therefore allowed partly in the above consent terms and the impugned notification is quashed and set aside. 9. As noted earlier, u/s 14(3) of the APMC Act, the term of the Board of Directors of Respondent No.6 cannot be continued beyond 25.5.2012 and, therefore, fresh elections will have to be held some time in May 2012. We have already directed that the proposal for bifurcation if submitted by Respondent No.4 by following the due process, shall be finally decided in terms of the scheme of section 44 of the Act within three months from today and, therefore, we are satisfied that no fresh elections are required to be heard within the period of coming three months. 10. This order will not prevent the interveners to submit a proposal to Respondent No.4 for bifurcation. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly but without any order as to costs. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)