1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5321 OF 2008 1. Dattaji Venkatrao Patil and another .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri S. K. Kadam, A. G.P. for the Respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri P. G. Rodge, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 09TH MARCH, 2010. ORAL ORDER [Per A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee Udgir was bifurcated by passing an order under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act on 28th October, 2004 into Agriculture Produce 2 Market Committee, Udgir and Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jalkot. According to the petitioner, when Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Udgir was bifurcated in the year 2004, it was in contemplation to bring in to existence three Agriculture Produce Market Committee (1) Udgir, (2) Jalkot, (3) Deoni. However, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deoni was not brought into existence then in the year 2004. 02. It is the case of the respondents that by passage of time, it was felt desirable to further bifurcate Udgir Agriculture Produce Market Committee into Udgir and Deoni Agriculture Produce Market Committee. The said decision came to be translated into an order under Section 44 on 18th September, 2008. It is this, bifurcation of Udgir Agriculture Produce Market Committee into Udgir and Deoni Agriculture Produce Market Committee, which is objected by filing writ petition. 03. Perusal of Section 44 reveals that bifurcation of market committee depends upon the satisfaction of the State Government, for securing effective regulation of market of any agriculture produce after taking into consideration the economic 3 viability of the market committee which is proposed to come into being. An order can be passed subject to satisfaction of two conditions (1) consultation with the concerned market committee, (2) consultation with the marketing board. 04. The State Government has filed an affidavit in reply. It is categorically stated in paragraph 12 of the reply that there was a consultation with the marketing board and the marketing board has itself resolved to approve the bifurcation. Similar is the decision in relation to the market committee. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Udgir has also passed a resolution approving bifurcation on 20th February 2007. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the decision to bifurcate is more than justified for two fold reasons (1) that it was very much in contemplation when the order was passed in the year 2004, (2) market committee so also marketing board has approved the same. 05. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the market committee at Deoni is not viable and has suffered loss. The market committee Deoni has already come into being and functioning. In our view, mandatory provisions of 4 Section 44 of the Act are satisfied before bifurcation of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Udgir. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Mar.10