1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4422 OF 2009 Bajirao Keshavrao Bare, Age 45 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Kawsan, Tq.Paithan, District Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Co-operation, Textile and Marketing Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad (3). Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Paithan, District Aurangabad through its Secretary .. Respondents Shri A.D.Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 Respondent No.3 deleted as per Court’s leave dated 13.7.2009 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 13h JULY 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. At the outset, Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to delete respondent No.3. Leave granted at the risk of the petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner, who is facing a show cause notice for showing cause as to why the Agricultural Produce Market Committee should not be superseded apprehends the passing of an order on account of some mala fide intention of the respondents, particularly as the term of the present Agricultural Produce Market Committee would expire on 4.10.2010. We are informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice which is issued on 29.5.2009 under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and after filing of the reply by the present respondents the proceedings are pending for passing necessary orders. In the light of that it is urged before us that it may be directed that the order, if adverse to the interest of the 3 petitioner is passed, should not be enforced for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing of appeal under Section 52-B of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. 4. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we allow this petition and direct that in the event any adverse order is passed by the respondents, same shall not be given effect for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order to enable the petitioner to file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. We, however, make it clear that in the event the petitioner files an application for stay, the appellate authority shall decide the same uninfluenced by the fact that we have directed that adverse order shall not be given effect for a period of two weeks. The authority shall decide the said application uninfluenced by this fact. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. ( R.K.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/4422.09wp 4