Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.892 of 2008 The Man Taluka Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dahiwadi ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & others ...Respondents Mr.P.A.Pol for the Petitioner Mr.A.P.Vanarase, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr.Siddharth Karpe iby Y.K.S.Legal for Respondent No.5 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th April, 2008 : 15th April, 2008 : 15th April, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Pol, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. 3. The Petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 4. The Petitioner APMC as per its Resolution dated 15-10-2007 rejected the renewal application for licence submitted by the Respondent No.5 for the reasons set out therein. This order was challenged by the Respondent No.5 by filing an Appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) 2 Act, 1963 (for short "the APMC Act"). 5. The said Appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar on 10-12-2007 solely on the ground that the Appeal was not filed within the period of 30 days as provided under Section 9 of the said Act. The Respondent No.5, therefore, approached the State Government, despite the fact that there is no provision under the Act for a second appeal and the only provision is of Revision under Section 43 of the Act. The proceedings filed by Respondent No.5 came to be registered as Appeal No.544/2007 before the State Government and the Hon’ble Minister for Marketing decided the same and allowed by his order dated 24-1-2008 and the said order states that proceedings were treated as revision proceedings. Hence,this petition by the Committee. 6. When the Lower Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal on 10-12-2007 solely on the ground that it was not submitted in time, the State Government in its revisionary powers could at the most condone the delay in filing the appeal and by restoring the same could direct the lower appellate authority to decide it on its own merits. The order impugned before the State Government and passed by the lower appellate authority on 10-12-2007 did not decide the appeal on merits and, 3 therefore, under the revisionary powers the State Government could not have re-appreciated the evidence on record as if it was a fresh appeal being decided under Section 9 of the Act by the State Government. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. 7. In the premises this petition succeeds partly and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the State Government is quashed and set aside. The delay caused in filing the appeal before the Assistant Registrar by Respondent No.5 is hereby condoned and the said appeal is restored to the file of the Assistant Registrar, Dahiwadi, Tal. Man, Dist. Satara. It is directed that the said appeal shall be heard and decided afresh on its own merits and as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 30th June, 2008. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]