-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6304 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6304 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6304 OF 2008 Shri Mahadev Baburao Chakote ..Petitioner Vs. Solapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Solapur & Ors...Respondents Mr. R.V. Bansode for Petitioner. Mr. Amit Karkhanis with Mr. Sarang Aradhye for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER,2008 DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER,2008 DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Perused petition. 2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18th August, 2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (the Act) came to be rejected on merits. 3. The factual matrix reveal that on 5th November, 2007 the A.P.M.C. adopted Resolution Nos.66 and 67 whereby the Chairman was prevented from making any payment either by way of advance or deposit. The petitioner, who is the Chairman -2- of A.P.M.C., has committed breach of these Resolutions. Consequently, the majority of 11 members approached the District Deputy Registrar of Co-ooperative Societies, Solapur, informing his breach of the resolutions committed by the petitioner, Chairman of the subject A.P.M.C. Under his directions, the notices were issued for convening a meeting on 21st April, 2008. Accordingly, meeting held on 21st April, 2008 and resolution produced on page 39 of the petition, which is clear from the minutes annexed to the petition, whereby the present petitioner again directed not to issue cheques hence forth under his signature and powers were given to the Vice-Chairman and Secretary of the A.P.M.C., Solapur. The petition invoked powers of the Division Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune under Section 41A of the A.P.M.C. Act. Section 41A reads as under:- "41A.(1) The Director may, on his own motion, or on report or complaint received by him, by order, prohibit the execution of a resolution passed or order made by the Committee or its Chairman or Vice-Chairman or any of its officer or servants of the Market Committee, if he is of the opinion that such resolution or order is prejudicial to the public interest or is likely to hinder efficient running of the business in any market area, principal market yard or sub-market yard or is against the provisions of this Act or the rules or bye-laws made thereunder. (2) Where the execution or further execution of a resolution or order is prohibited by an order made under sub-section (1) and continuing in force, it shall be the duty of the Committee, it so required by the Director, to take any action which the Market Committee would have been entitled to take, if the resolution or order had never been passed or made and which is necessary for preventing the Chairman or Vice-Chairman or any of its officers or servants from doing or continuing to do anything under such resolution, or, order." (emphasis supplied). -3- Perusal of the aforesaid Section would go to show that the Director by order can prohibit the execution of a resolution passed or order made by the Committee or its Chairman or Vice-Chairman or any of its officer or servants of the Market Committee, if he is of the opinion that such resolution or order is prejudicial to the public interest or is likely to hinder efficient running of the business in any market area, principal market yard or sub-market yard or is against the provisions of this Act or the rules or bye-laws made thereunder. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid provision, the present petitioner as stated invoked the jurisdiction of the Director to prohibit the execution of the Resolution recorded in the meeting dated 21st April, 2008. Initially, interim stay was granted, but subsequently it was vacated. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of Writ Petition No.3527 of 2008. This Court vide order dated 5th June, 2008, while disposing of the petition, directed the Director to dispose of the Appeal finally after hearing the parties. Accordingly by the impugned order came to be passed. Application moved by the petitioner came to be rejected. 5. Admittedly, the present petitioner was not following the mandate of the earlier resolution No.66 and 67 dated 5th November, 2007. The Resolution dated 5th November, 2007 was -4- not challenged by the petitioner. The second resolution was passed, since the petitioner was not complying with the majority resolution dated 5th November, 2007. 6. It is also clear from the averments made in the petition and the material available on record that the petitioner does not enjoy majority in the A.P.M.C. Inspite of the resolution adopted by the A.P.M.C. by majority, the petitioner was flouting the directions issued therein. 7. The reasons given for rejecting the application are cogent and can be supported on the basis of material available on record. It is held in the impugned order neither public interest nor working of the a.P.M.C. being affected by the impugned resolution. No fault can be found with the view taken by the Authority below. This Court is not a Court of Appeal. The power of this Court under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution is purely discretionary which can only be exercised to do substantive justice. No such case is made out. The view taken is reasonable and possible. The petition is without any merits and hence dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.)