1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1243 OF 2010 (S hri Vikas K. Gawali vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 17, 2010. Heard Shri Ghuge, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sonare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 5 has chosen not to appear, though it is served with notice. Shri Ghuge, learned counsel points out that the petitioner is a Chief Administrator appointed under Section 15-A Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, after authorization from the Director of Marketing and he has been removed by District Deputy Registrar illegally. He contends that said District Deputy Registrar is not authorized by the Director of Marketing to change or substitute the Administrator and in any case he has acted only because of the D.O. dated 28.08.2009 issued by the State Government. He, therefore, argues that said authority has not acted in its own discretion. Attention is invited to communication dated 08.01.2010 issued by the Joint Secretary of State of Maharashtra in this 2 respect and he contends that this direction has been blindly obeyed by that authority. Shri Sonare, learned AGP, on the other hand, states that the petitioner is only a private administrator having no interest in the matter and the Government has taken necessary decision in accordance with law and in the interest of Respondent No. 5. He justifies the order dated 16.01.2010. The perusal of impugned communication dated 16.01.2010 shows that the District Deputy Registrar has acted because of communication dated 08.01.2010 and said communication by State Government is addressed to the Director of Marketing. The State Government has found that steps in the interest of APMC were not taken and it was in its interest to change the Administrator. The Government found it proper to have Government Administrator on APMC instead of having private Administrator. The Government has further directed steps to be taken to hold election of APMC immediately. The communication is in the interest of APMC and I do not find any malafides in it. Though Shri Ghuge, learned counsel is right in contending that the decision to substitute Administrator should be taken under Section 15-A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, by the 3 Director of Marketing or his delegate as mentioned therein, in present situation, as I find that the petitioner has no locus to file such petition, writ petition is not entertained. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE *GS.