1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4789 OF 2009. ( APMC Washim -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 9, 2009. Heard finally by consent of Shri A.P. Tathod, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri S.V. Manohar, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that, the moment respondent no.3 effects purchase in market yard, he has to pay necessary charges and market fee as per Section 31 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. He further states that, after processing and furnishing Form No.8 as per Rule 32[3] of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967, the said respondent can seek refund. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, states that, this is the procedure which respondent no.3 has been following and he points out that on affidavit before this 2 Court, respondent no.3 has stated that it is abiding by this process only. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent no.1 states that the Hon’ble Minister has observed same thing. In view of the agreement between the petitioner and respondent no.3, I find that as provisions of Section 31 of the Act read with Rule 32 of the 1967 Rules, are being accepted as binding on them by the parties, the grievance of petitioner is being taken care of. Grievance made by respondent no.3 is Form No.8 submitted by it are unnecessarily kept pending by the petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioner states that no such Forms according to him are pending, but if any such Forms are pending, the same will be disposed of in accordance with the law. In view of above, Writ Petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.