- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5617/1999 1] Vijaykumar Narayan Varma, age major, occu.agril., 2] Raghunath Sahadu Patil, age major, occu.agril., Both r/o Kalamsare Tq.Amalner Dist.Jalgaon. ...Petitioners.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] Amalner Agricultural Produce Market Committee, A/p Tal.Amalner Dist.Jalgaon. Through its Secretary. 3] The Director of Marketing, Pune. 4] The Jalgaon Mathadi Unprotected Employees Board, 7-B, Nirmal Niwas, Vivekanand Nagar, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon. 5] The Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., Zonal Office, Near Natraj Theatre, Jalgaon. Through its Manager. ...Respondents... - 2 - ..... Shri A.D. Rajput, Advocate h/f Shri L.M. Pawar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 3. Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.5. Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for respondent no.4. Respondent no.2 served. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 12.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Gavai, J.): 1] Heard counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the circular dated 30.9.1996 issued by the respondent no.2 – market committee directing to deduct levy at the rate of 23% from the bills of the agriculturists like the petitioners. 3] The circular in question has been issued by the respondent no.2 – APMC on the premise that the agriculturists, who sell the agricultural produce in the market area of the market committee, are employers under the Mathadi Act. The said question is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kacharu Keshav V/s A.P.M.C., Shrirampur [ 2005 (2) Mh.L.J., 161 ] has held - 3 - that the agriculturists who sell agricultural produce in the market area of the market committee can not be termed as employers under the Mathadi Act and hence they can not be registered as employers and those who are registered employers alone can be obliged to pay levy under the Mathadi Act. 4] In that view of the matter, present writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). No order as to costs. (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c128105