1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1578 OF 2011 (The M.S. Cooperative Cotton Growers’ Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri C.V. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri C.N. Adgokar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.3. -------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 29, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 18/11/2010 passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. By the said order, the Tribunal has confirmed the findings recorded by the Dispute Sub-Committee constituted under Section 10 of the said Act. The dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner Federation is as regards 2 grading of the cotton done by the said Dispute Sub- Committee. The said grading pertains to the years 1999, 2001 and 2002. It is the case of the petitioner Federation that the grading done by the Dispute Sub-Committee is incorrect in view of the fact that the upgradation is to the extent of two stages. It is also the contention of the petitioner Federation that the Dispute Sub- Committee was not properly constituted. It is pertinent to note that gradation has taken place in the years 1999, 2001 and 2002 in respect of the cotton, which was procured by the Federation in those years. The petitioner Federation did not take exception to the said grading at the relevant time. It is further required to be noted that even before the Tribunal, the point now sought to be raised as regards constitution of the Dispute Sub- Committee was not raised. The petitioner wants this Court to embark upon an exercise of adjudicating as to whether the gradation done by the Dispute Sub- Committee was proper or not. In my view, it is not for this Court in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction to carry out such an 3 exercise. The Tribunal has adjudicated upon the grievance of the petitioner in respect of the gradation and by the impugned order, has rejected the same. Having perused the impugned order and in the light of what has been stated hereinabove, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj