1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7501 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7870 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9181 OF 2009 Vishwas s/o Mohanrao Thete, Age: 37 years, Occ: Service, R/o. C/o. A.P.M.C. Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga,Dist. Latur. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Rajendra s/o Raosaheb Tambhale, Age: 37 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga,Dist. Latur, & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. S.B. Dastgir, Advocate for appellant - applicant. Shri.Sachin Deshmukh,Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 5. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 20TH OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 18-07-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.7051 of 2008. In short, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Aurad Shahajani was created by bifurcating it from Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Nilanga on 04-08-1997. (For short, "A.P.M.C."). According to the Counsel, respondent No.1 Tambhale was working with A.P.M.C. Aurad Shahajani as Assistant Secretary by virtue of appointment made on 01-01-2004. The appellant contends that on 10-01-2008 he was appointed as Secretary of A.P.M.C. Aurad Shahajani. By a communication dated 29-01-2008, the Director of Marketing, M.S. Pune communicated to the Administrator of A.P.M.C. Aurad Shahajani that the appointment of the appellant be treated as cancelled. By a communication dated 05-02-2008 the Director of Marketing, M.S. Pune communicated to the Administrator of A.P.M.C. Aurad Shahajani 3 that the earlier communication issued by his office dated 29-01-2008 be treated as cancelled, meaning thereby that earlier communication made by the office of the Director of Marketing, M.S. Pune addressed to the Administrator, A.P.M.C. Aurad Shahajani cancelling the appointment of the appellant was withdrawn, or cancelled. Shri. S.B. Dastgir, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is qualified to hold the post. Respondent No.1 Tambhale is not qualified to be appointed by way of promotion as Secretary. The Administrator had rightly appointed the appellant in accordance with law and in the light of correspondence, various orders passed, the learned Single Judge committed error in setting aside order of the Hon'ble Minister and allowing the Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause "A". 3. Shri. Sachin Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 Tambhale submitted that the learned Single Judge reached a finding 4 that the appellant was not qualified to hold the post of Secretary. The appellant entered into service through a back door entry. The recruitment rules were flouted in appointing the appellant. There is clear case of political favouritism and recommendation in the appellant's appointment and due to political influence, certain favourable orders were obtained in favour of the appellant. 4. We have perused the record placed before us, provisions of A.P.M.C. Act, Rules framed thereunder and Rules in respect of recruitment. We have minutely perused order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned herein. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The learned Single Judge in a reasoned judgment has observed in Para-12 that it appears that only due to intervention of Hon'ble Minister of Marketing on the letter of Mr. Ashokrao Patil Nilangekar, the Director of Marketing changed his stand. It is further observed that the appellant was not qualified to 5 hold the post of Secretary and Director of Marketing has rightly refused to grant approval to the appointment of the appellant. The learned Single Judge even considered the issue of appointment of the appellant as a project affected person. 5. During the course of hearing, the issue in respect of so called promotion of respondent No.1 Tambhale from the post of Assistant Secretary to the Secretary is also tried to be raised. The issue in the present proceeding is primarily related to the appointment of the appellant as Secretary. Therefore, we are of the view that the objection raised in respect of the appointment of respondent No.1 Tambhale as Assistant Secretary or his alleged promotion as Secretary need not be addressed by us. 6. During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that the Administrator is looking after the affairs of the A.P.M.C. of Aurad 6 Shahajani since last more than six years. It is not known as to why the charge has not been handed over to an elected Committee. It is also not known as to whether the Staff of the said A.P.M.C. is paid salary regularly. We, therefore, direct that the Director of Marketing, M.S. Pune shall look into the matter and take appropriate steps to hand over the affairs of the said A.P.M.C. to the elected Committee and direct the District Deputy Registrar (Coperative Societies), to call for quarterly reports of the functioning of this A.P.M.C. This direction is issued in the interest of the agriculturists for whose benefit, the A.P.M.C. was established. 7. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the view adopted by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any patent illegality or perversity in order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 8. In the light of the dismissal of the 7 Letters Patent Appeal, both the Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. . The learned A.G.P. to forward copy of this order to the Director of Marketing, M.S. Pune forthwith. . Authenticated copy be provided to the learned A.G.P. sd/- sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/OCT10/lpa239.10