1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.107 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2010. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray that it be declared that the buyer has to pay the levy payable and they should not be held liable to pay the levy which was payable and paid in the past by an agriculturist. It is also prayed that the Government Resolution dated 12th November, 2008 and circular of the Market Committee dated 13th December, 2 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders 2008 be quashed and set aside. 2. On behalf of the Respondents, our attention is invited to unreported decision of the Division Bench of this court dated 18th January, 2010 in Writ Petition No.9724 of 2009 in the case of M/s. Shefali Traders and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others, and companion matters to contend that the grievance made by the Petitioners in this Petition has already been answered in the said decision. 3. Counsel for the Petitioners however, submits that out of the two grounds raised in the present Petition, only one ground has been dealt with in the aforesaid decision, which pertains to the validity of constitution of the 3 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders committee. He submits that the Petitioners have raised another ground regarding the justness and authority to direct the Petitioners to make payment in respect of levy payable by the purchaser. 4. In our opinion, the Respondents have rightly adverted to the concluding part of the above said unreported decision to contend that even this aspect has been dealt with in the above said decision. The Court has observed that the plea of the Petitioners that the State Government Resolution was or was not justified in directing recovery of mathadi cess only from the commission agent, even that ground can be agitated before the Civil Court and the Civil Court would be competent to decide that aspect. In other words, both the grounds raised in the 4 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders present Petition have already been answered in the above said decision. Following the same opinion, we dispose of this Petition with liberty to the Petitioners to resort to other appropriate remedies as may be advised, which will be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. [S.S. SHINDE,J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.] asb/FEB10/wp107.09