1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10254 of 2009 The Merchants Association, Jaysingpur, Tal. Shirol. ....Petitioners Vs. The Jaysingpur Agricultural Products Market Committee & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Umesh Mankapure, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Arjunwadkar, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- March 23, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Preliminary objection is taken with regard to the maintainability of this Petition at the instance of Respondent No. 1. According to him, Petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy by way of proceedings under Rule 4F of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing Development and Regulation Rules, 1967. We find merits in this objection. In the circumstances, this Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to take recourse to remedy under Rule 4F of the Rules. All questions in the said proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 2 3. We are conscious of the fact that the dispute is required to be raised by the Director within a period of 60 days from the date of arising of the dispute. In the present case, however, the Petitioners are challenging the show-cause notice issued to them which is stated to be dated 15th September, 2009 and the Petitioners directly rushed to this Court by way of present Writ Petition in November 2009. Since we are relegating the Petitioners before the Director, the Director will have to now to decide the controversy on its own merits in accordance with law and not non-suit the Petitioners on the ground that the dispute instituted by them is barred by limitation, provided the Petitioners present the proposed dispute before the Director within one week from today. The ground of limitation cannot be pressed into service by Respondent No. 1 at whose instance we are relegating the Petitioners before the Director by way of remedy under Rule 4(10). 3. According to the Petitioners, in furtherance of the show-cause notice issued by the Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 1 is likely to precipitate the matter by resorting to criminal action against the Petitioners. We make it clear that Respondent No. 1 shall not precipitate the matter till the issue is finally answered by the Director in the peculiar facts of the present case. In as much as, it is not in dispute that Direct Marketing License has already been issued in favour of the Petitioners which operates throughout the State of Maharashtra. 4. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J) 3