1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.: 3283 OF 2001 *** 1. Taluka Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Mukhed (Through its Chairman: Shri Nagnathrao Satwaji Ravangaonkar, Aged 50 years, Occu. Agril., R/o Shanideo Road, Mukhed, Dist. Nanded). 2. Narangal Seva Sahakari Society, Narangal, (Through its Chairman: Shri Tarakant Madhavrao Patil, Aged 41 years, Occu.: Agril., R/o Subhash Nagar, Bhaktapura Road, Degloor, Dist. Nanded). ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court, Bench: Aurangabad) [Through its Secretary: Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32]. 2. The Commissioner of Agriculture, MS, Pune. 3. The Director of Agriculture, (Extension and Training), MS Pune. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 5. Kasrali Seva Sahakari Society, Kasrali (through its Chairman: Laxmanrao Gangaramji Thakkarwad, Aged 40 years, Occu.: Agril., R/o Kasrali, Tq.Biloli, Dist. Nanded. 2 6. Shri Gangaram Poshetti Thakkarwad, MLA, Kasrali Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded. 7. Shri Dada Jadhavrao, Minister of State for Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 8. The Maharashtra Agricultural Industrial Development Corporation Limited, (Through its Divisional Manager, ViP Road, Nanded). ... RESPONDENTS *** Mr. U. R. Awate, Advocate h/f Mr. S. B. Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate h/f Mr. D. N. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent NO.4. Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate h/f Mr. P. V. Mundhe, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. *** CORAM: S. B. DESHMUKH & K. U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED:- 24th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per Deshmukh, J.]: 1. Petitioners approached this Court with following reliefs/ prayers: (A) To quash the impugned Government Resolution dated 31st July, 2001 according sanction to the appointment of the Respondent NO.5 - Society as sole agent of the Corporation for distribution of fertilisers among affected agriculturists (Exh."D") as well as the corrigendum dated 2.8.2001 (Exh."G") both issued by the Desk Officer to Government, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai by appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be. 3 2. This petition was before this Court on 23rd August, 2001. Notice was issued to the Respondents. On 3rd September, 2001 this Court heard the parties through their counsel. Affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. It was noticed by this Court that there was no affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Amongst these three Respondents, Respondent No.1 is the State, Respondent NO.2 is Commissioner of Agriculture, M.S., Pune and Respondent No.3 is Director of Agriculture, Pune. Respondent No.4 is the Zilla Parishad whose affidavit in reply is on record. This Court has recorded in that order that the agency for distribution of the fertilisers for Mukhed and Degloor Talukas respectively was given in favour of the present Petitioners. Respondent/ State subsequently appointed Respondent No.5 Kasrali Seva Sahakari Society, Kasrali as sole agent in place of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.5 society was appointed as sole distributor for Nanded district as per the order dated 2nd August, 2001. This Court has also noticed that there 4 is no reference as to whether interest of the two petitioners for their area was protected or otherwise. This Court, after hearing the parties, directed that Petitioner NO.1 to be allowed to distribute fertilisers in Mukhed Taluka and Petitioner NO.2 was allowed to distribute fertilisers in Degloor Taluka as per the allotment of area to each of the petitioners. On that day, this Court had adjourned the matter at the request of learned A.P.P. who appeared for Respondent State and its authorities. After this order, we have noticed from the further order passed on 27th September, 2001 that this Court had issued Rule, returnable after eight weeks. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel present before the Court, we have seen two exhibits annexed with the Petition by the Petitioners. Exhibit-D (Page 32) is a Government Resolution dated 31st July, 2001. This Government Resolution reveals that the farmers who were affected on account of natural calamity and for whom some aid was decided to be given by the State Government, for the period of August to October, 2001, was 5 in terms of manure. This manure was directed to be distributed through Respondent No.5 Kasrali Seva Sahakari Society, Kasrali as a special case. We have noticed that Respondent No.5 is a village level cooperative society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. This Government Resolution is impugned in this writ petition. We have also seen other Government Resolution Annexure-G (page 43) dated 2nd August, 2010. This Government Resolution is also virtually in the same terms to that of the earlier Government Resolution Annexure-D. In this Government Resolution natural calamity, which has been noticed by the State Government, is of a similar nature i.e. on account of flood etc. In substance, both the Government Resolutions are similar in nature and both the Government Resolutions have permitted distribution of State aid in terms of manure through Respondent No.5 village level cooperative society. The society was supposed to take delivery of the manure from M.A.I.D.C. It is mentioned in this Annexure-G that said manure was to be purchased by 6 Respondent No.5 society from M.A.I.D.C. and was to be distributed to the affected farmers. In substance, controversy before the Court was in respect of right to distribute Government aid in terms of manure to eligible affected farmers. According to the contention of the Petitioners, both the petitioners were eligible and initially permitted by the State Government with specific allocation of the area. Despite earlier order, in favour of the Petitioners for specific area, these two Government Resolutions subsequently have been issued by the State Government in derogation of the rights of the petitioners. That was the reason for the petitioners to approach this Court seeking writ against the Respondents. We have noticed from the pleadings on record that issue of distribution of the manure to eligible affected farmers was for a limited period. Due to passage of time, over the years, controversy did not survive. We do not see now any issue for adjudication in this writ petition. This petition can be disposed of in view of these admitted facts and circumstances. 7 4. Writ petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged. No costs. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated. [K. U.CHANDIWAL, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:24/08/2010. ans/3283 8 WRIT PETITION NO.: 3283 OF 2001 Date of decision: 24th AUGUST, 2010. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. B. DESHMUKH. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K. U. CHANDIWAL. . Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? . To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No . Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No the fair copy of the judgment? . Whether this case involves a substantial ... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? . Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? . Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE