1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10255 of 2009 Ghodavat Foods Industries Pvt. Ltd. ....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 the Respondent No.1, the controversy raised in this Petition is in the nature of dispute between the Petitioners (who are Direct Marketing License holders) and the Respondent No. 1 Market Committee, which dispute is amenable to remedy under Section 4F of the Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Rules, 1967. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that 2 looking to sub­rule (1) of Rule 4F, it would appear that the dispute brought before this Court is not between the Petitioners (Direct Marketing License holders) and the Market Committee as such. It is not possible to accept this submission. On the other hand, we are in agreement with the preliminary objection taken by the Respondent No. 1 that the appropriate remedy for the Petitioners is to raise the dispute before the Director of Marketing, Government of Maharashtra which will have to be decided on its own merits. We are conscious of the fact that sub­rule (1) provides for period of 60 days for filing of the dispute before the Director from the date of arising of the dispute. However, the Petitioners have directly approached this Court and since we are relegating the Petitioners before the Director, the objection regarding dispute being barred by limitation cannot be invoked either by the Director or raised by the Respondent No. 1­Marketing Federation who has taken the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present Petition. In other words, the dispute to be filed by the Petitioners will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law and the Petitioners cannot be non­suited on the ground that the dispute was presented beyond limitation, provided the Petitioners present the proposed dispute before the Directors within one week from today. 3. According to the Petitioners, in furtherance of the show­cause 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. 3 4. We make it clear that the plea taken by the Respondent No. 1 that there is no valid license in favour of the Petitioners will also have to be considered by the Director in the proposed proceedings. This position is explained in the rejoinder affidavit by the Petitioners. However, since the same is tendered across the bar, it is not taken on record. We hope and trust that Director will decide the dispute within the time prescribed by the Rules. 5. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)