1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5213 OF 2008 Devi Ahilya Phalbaug Prakriya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit & ors. Petitioners vs. Manmad Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee & ors. Respondents Mr.P.N.Joshi with Mr.R.S.Ghadge i/b. Mr.A.S.Desai for the petitioners. Mr.M.S.Karnik for respondents 1, 5 and 7. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for respondents 1 to 3 and 8. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 6th August, 2008 P.C. Mr.Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, seeks leave to delete the names of respondents 4 and 6. Leave granted at his own risk. 2. Heard Mr.Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Karnik, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 7 and Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, the learned AGP for respondents 1 to 3 and 8. 3. The petition pertains to election to the Managing Committee of respondent no.1-Manmad APMC. By the impugned order, the respondent no.2-District Deputy 2 Registrar deleted the names of the petitioner nos. 1 to 5-societies from the Final Voters List. The petitioner Nos. 6 to 10 are the respective delegates of petitioner nos. 1 to 5. It is not disputed before me that the impugned order is passed without following the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, the parties to the petition agree for remanding the matter back to respondent no.2-District Deputy Registrar to consider afresh the eligibility of the petitioners to be on Final Voters List. 4. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the petition by the following order: ORDER ORDER ORDER (1) The impugned order passed by the respondent no.2-District Deputy Registrar on 1.7.2008 deleting the the names of petitioner nos. 1 to 5 from Processing and Marketing Society’s constituency as contemplated under Section 13(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent no.2 for fresh decision in this regard. (2) Needless to mention that the respondent no.2 shall take decision after following principles of natural 3 justice, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (3) The learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that the concerned parties shall remain present before respondent no.2 on 13.8.2008 at 11 a.m. (4) It is clarified that this order may not be construed as a stay to the election of members to the Managing Committee of respondent no.1 to be elected from other Constituencies. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]