-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (1) Writ Petition No.936 of 2007 1. Babaji Shankar Mankar and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. Rajendra Vasantrao Raskar and others ..Respondents (2) Writ Petition No.940 of 2007 1. Tanaji Rambhau Thorat and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. M/s Fruits and Vegetable Merchants Association and ors. ..Respondents. (3) Writ Petition No. 1319 of 2007 Ashok Devram Walunji and ors ..Petitioners vs. 1. Rajendra Vasantrao Raskar and others ..Respondents (4) Writ Petition No. 1320 of 2007 Deepak Subhash Neharkar and others ..Petitioners vs. M/s Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Association and ors. ..Respondents Shri V.A.Thorat, Sr.Counsel with Shri R.A.Thorat with P.T.Thorat for petitioners in all petitions. Shri N.V.Walavalkar i/b Shri Shri V.B.Nighot for respondent no.1 in W.P.No.936 of 2007. Shri R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Shri P.I.Khemani, A.G.P. for respondent State in all petitions. -2- CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 1st February, 2008 1st February, 2008 1st February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. These writ petitions challenge the order passed by the Minister, Department of Marketing, Government of Maharashtra dated 3rd February, 2007 quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Director of Marketing dated 30th November, 2006. By the order under challenge delivered on 3rd February, 2007, the Minister has set aside the Resolution dated 17th July, 2006 of the licence Sub Committee of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC for short). By this resolution the Market Committee had granted licence to 306 A class traders. 2. Against the decision of the licence Sub Committee, it appears that the Director of Marketing was approached under sec.52(b) of the APMC Act by one Fruits and Vegetable Merchants Association. They were aggrieved by the Resolution of the Market Committee referred to above. It appears that their appeal was heard by the Director of Marketing and the Director of Marketing has dismissed the same. -3- 3. It further appears that the above Merchants Association and one Rajendra Vasantrao Raskar carrying on business as a wholesale broker of potato and onion from APMC, Mumbai challenged this decision of the Director of Marketing before the State Government and that is how the Minister was seized of the matter. In his final order, the Minister has reversed the decision of the Director of Marketing and also that of the licence sub committee of APMC. 4. Aggrieved traders are before this Court challenging the said order of the Minister. On the last occasion, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State so also the Minister and Director of Marketing made a statement before me that the order of Minister suffers from a serious infirmity in as much as when the above parties approached the Government and the matter was directed to be heard by the Minister, the State did not issue any notice to the Traders who are affected parties. In other words, what was in issue before the Minister was the issuance of licence to these traders. It is undisputed that the traders were vitally affected by the proceedings. However, the -4- Minister passed the order in their absence. In such circumstances, he made a statement that the order passed by the Minister on 3rd February, 2007 would be withdrawn by the State and the application preferred by the original applicants would be reheard and decided afresh. 5. In the light of this statement of the learned Advocate General, the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to make appropriate submissions when the matters are heard afresh. Needless to state that it is open for the State Government to place the matter before such authority empowered under the Rules to decide the same. However, before the due date of hearing, necessary notice of the date and time of hearing be issued to the petitioners in these petitions and the original applicants so also all those affected by the proceedings. Only after such notice in writing of the date and time is issued and proof is produced of receipt of the same, that the Minister/Appropriate Authority/State Government shall decide the pending proceedings. All contentions including on the maintainability of the proceedings before the State Government and the powers of the State Government to interfere -5- with the order of Director of Marketing are kept open to be urged before the State Government. No opinion is expressed thereon. The order of statusquo granted by this Court to continue until the State Government takes final decision. 6. State Government to endeavour and dispose of the pending proceedings uninfluenced by any observations in the earlier order and by 30th April, 2008. The parties to appear before the State Government or the Designated Authority on 14th February, 2008 at 11.00 a.m. 7. Petitions are disposed of. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)