1 wp2522-09.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2522/2009 Chopada Agril.Produce Market Committee an another . .. Petitioners Versus 1] The State of Maha. and others .. Respondents .... Mr.V.R.Dhorde,Adv.for petitioners. Mr.V.B.Ghatge,AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.P.Deshmukh,Adv.for R.4. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER ,2011 ORAL ORDER : 1] This Petition is filed on 3/2/2009 seeking quashing and setting aside of license to establish or operate private market granted in favour of respondent no.4 by an order dated 3/10/2008 2 wp2522-09.odt by respondent no.2 Director of Agricultural Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune. 2] By order dated 27/4/09, notices were issued to respondents. By application dated 8/11/11, the petitioner prayed for amendment of petition. The application for amendment is allowed by this Court and the matter is heard on the amended pleadings and the impugned order. 3] By order dated 25/5/10, the respondent no.2 passed final order granting license for establishment of private market in favour of respondent no.4. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that grant of license on 3/10/2008 by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.4 was provisional one which amounts to exempting respondent no.4 from the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as the APMC Act for short] and the Maharashtra 3 wp2522-09.odt Agricultural Produce Marketing [Development and Regulation] Rules 1967 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1967 for short]. 5] It is submitted that in absence of hearing according to the petitioner, the respondent should not have exempted the respondent no.4 while granting provisional license. By referring to provisions of Section 59 of the Rules framed under Chatper 1-A of the Rules 1967, the counsel submits that the Director was not empowered to pass order allowing respondent no.4 to establish a private market without complying the mandatory requirements in law and in case the Director passes such an order, the same would be provisional one which power is not conferred on the Director in law. The counsel for petitioner placed reliance on judgment and order dated 11/8/2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.3415/10 and 900/10. 6] The learned counsel appearing for the State supported the order passed by the Director and submitted that there is efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner and the 4 wp2522-09.odt petition now has become infructuous. 7] The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 Shri Deshmukh submitted that under the provisions of the APMC Act and the Rules 1967, the Director is empowered to pass order permitting the respondent no.4 to establish private market on certain conditions stipulated in the order. The counsel submitted that nothing is placed on record to demonstrate that the said order was passed u/s 59 of the APMC Act, exempting respondent no.4. Therefore, providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is not required in the facts of the case. It was further submitted that there is alternate efficacious statutory remedy available for the petitioner which the petitioner has not availed of. The petition has become infructuous in view of the order passed by the Director. The private market is functioning since last more than 3 years. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. 8] We have perused the record placed before us. We do not find any order passed by the State exempting the respondent no.4 5 wp2522-09.odt by virtue of the provisions of Section 59 of the APMC Act. Unless the State passes such an order, the petitioner is not entitled to raise a ground of providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the provisions of the APMC Act and the Rule 1967, the Director in exercise of his powers passed initial order on 3/10/08 permitting respondent no.4 to establish private market and thereafter, passed final order dated 5/5/10. It is submitted that the private market committee was already established and is functioning. We had noticed that there is alternate remedy for the petitioner which the petitioner has not availed. 9] We have perused the judgment cited supra. The Division Bench of this Court interfered in the said matter by observing that no steps were taken for extending an opportunity of hearing to the already existing market committees as admittedly in the facts of the said case, there was an order passed under Section 59 of the APMC Act. In that light of the matter, the Division Bench did not examine any other challenge which was raised in the Petition. In the facts of the case, the judgment of the Division Bench is not 6 wp2522-09.odt applicable to the present case. 10] In view of the facts and the observations made above, we do not find that it is a fit case to exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Petition is accordingly dismissed. (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) umg/wp2522-09