1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8281 OF 2009 1) Shri Ramesh Rajaram Patil and another. - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dharangaon Through it's Secretary & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SV Advant,Advocate for Petitioners; ----- CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 10th June, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard Shri Advant learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2) This writ petition challenges the order dated 12th September, 2008 passed by the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune, in an appeal under Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.) By the said order, the objection raised by the 2 petitioners, who are the Vice-Chairman and Directors of the Respondent No.1-APMC, in relation to the acceptance of the tender of Respondent No.5 - M/s Laxmi Constructions, for allotment of work contract in respect of Development of Sub-Market Yard as per Technology Mission on Cotton (TMC) norms at Erandol Sub- market year of Dharangaon Market committee, has been rejected. 3) In the impugned order, it has been observed that in the meeting of the Committee held on 17.12.2007, it was decided to call for tenders for construction of the aforesaid development work and the authority in that respect is given to the Chairman of the Market Committee. The petitioner No. 2 had proposed the name of the Chairman of the Market Committee for authorizing him to carry on this work. In the order it is further observed that the question of appointment of sub-committee was not raised in the meeting of the market committee held on 31.3.2008, in which the bids were opened and accepted. The comparative chart prepared for assessment of bids was also signed by the petitioner. The work order under the tender has been issued to the lowest bidder. Thus, the objection raised by the petitioners to acceptance of tender and award of contract to Respondent no. 3 5 has been rejected, which action and order has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4) Shri Advant, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has urged that a sub-committee, as required under Section 33 of the said Act, has now been constituted. This aspect has been dealt with by the authority, as pointed out above and he has been rejected. Bare perusal of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act reveals that, it is the discretion of the Market committee to appoint one or more sub- committees with the approval of the Director and to delegate powers and duties to such committee, as it deems fit and proper. The provision is not mandatory, but it is a directory. Even otherwise, non-constitution of the Committee would not vitiate the decision. 5) Shri Advant, the learned Counsel, further urged that, the procedure, as prescribed under Section 33 of the said Act for execution of contract has not been followed. However, he has failed to demonstrate that neither the Chairman, nor the members of the Committee have signed the the contract. The contract document is not placed on record. Shri Advant further urged that the respondents be called upon to place on record the contract document. However, it is for the 4 petitioners, who are coming before the Court to place on record the copies of relevant contract document and satisfy the Court at least prima facie. Mere statement in the petition would not enough. 6) After going through the impugned order, it is apparent that the authority has recorded the findings of fact and there is no perversity, illegality or violation of any mandatory provisions, brought to my notice. In the result, there is no substance in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. (R.K.DESHPANDE) JUDGE bdv/p/wp8281.09