(1) WP. 3727.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3727 OF 2010 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nanded, through its Secretary .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Marketing and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 2. Hon'ble Minister, For Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 3. The Desk Officer, Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 4. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 5. Eknath S/o Ganpatrao Shinde, Age: Major, Occu.:Nil, R/o. Kanegaon, Post Sakol, Tq. Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur .. Respondents (2) WP. 3727.2010 Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for the respondent-State Mr. Mr. S.V. Gundre, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the respondent no.5 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 9TH JULY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioners-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nanded challenges order dated 19.3.2010 whereby, the appeal preferred under section 52B and rule 104 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Committee (Development and Regulations) Act, 1967 (for short "the Act") came to be dismissed. 3. It is not necessary to set out the facts relating to the controversy. It appears that the petitioner-A.P.M.C. was aggrieved by order rendered by learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Latur, in (3) WP. 3727.2010 appeal no. 41 of 2006. The petitioner therefore preferred appeal no. 4 of 2010 and urged the State Government to set aside that order. He was informed vide the impugned order (Exh."D" to the Petition) that the Second Appeal was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in section 52-B. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned AGP. Section 52B of the Act reads as follows:- "52B. Appeal. (1) Save as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Act, any person aggrieved by a decision taken or order passed under any of the provisions of this Act may prefer an appeal- (a) to the Director where such decision is taken or order is passed by the Market Committee, its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary or any other officer empowered to exercise the powers of the Director, (b) to the State Government, where such decision is taken or order is passed by the Director, (4) WP. 3727.2010 (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be made within a period of thirty days from the date of the decision or order appealed against. (3) The order passed in the appeal by the Director or the State Government, as the case may be, shall be final." Perusal of the sub-clause (b) of section 52B (1) clearly shows that appeal would lie to the State Government where the decision is taken or is passed by the Director. In the present case, the termination order was challenged before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar by way of appeal. Therefore, it was first appeal preferred before the authority. Section 52B itself provides for availability of the jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal by the State Government. The proviso of rule 104 of the Act also provide for the appeal to the State Government. This is so provided in order to have administrative control over the disciplinary actions of the A.P.M.C. The State Government cannot abdicate it's responsibility to entertain and decide (5) WP. 3727.2010 the appeal when the power is specifically available. Needless to say the impugned order is quite un- sustainable and liable to be interferred with. 5. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Hon'ble State Minister shall decide the appeal on it's merits within a period of six (6) months as far as possible. Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute. No costs. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp