1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Review Petition No.106 of 2010 IN Writ Petition No. 10254 OF 2009 Jaisingpur Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jaisingpur, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Solapur. ....Applicant Vs. The Merchants Association of Jaisingpur & anr. ....Respondents Mr. G.S.Godbole with Mr. P.M.Arjunwadkar, advocate for the applicant. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. S.N.Patil-AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- April 16, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Review takes exception to the order passed by us on March 23, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 10254/2009. The Petition was disposed of on the basis of submission made by the Applicants taking preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition. We accepted the preliminary objection that 2 the Writ Petitioners can resort to statutory remedy under Rule 4F of the Rules of 1967. It is on that basis we disposed of the Writ Petition with certain observations. 3. Now the Applicants by way of this Review Petition contend that the stand taken by them on the earlier occasion was inappropriate if not, ill advised. According to Counsel appearing for the Applicants, going by the Scheme of Rule 4F of the Rules of 1967, the dispute can be filed before the Director between two specified categories, namely, licence holder, private market licence holder, farmer-consumer market licence holder on the one hand as against the other set of persons referred to therein namely, the Market Committee, Agriculturist, Trader and the Consumer on the other. However, no dispute can be brought between the persons inter se falling in one or the other category. In the present case the dispute was between Market Committee and the Traders which were covered under the latter category grouped together. The argument seems to be logical, considering the provision in Rule 4F (i) of the Rules. However, that does not mean that the grievance of the Petitioners as was brought before this Court, by way of Writ Petition, to the effect that the Petitioners, in particular, their members cannot be compelled to take license as has been decided by the Market Committee in terms of Resolution dated 28th January, 2009, ought to be examined by this Court. Such challenge, in any case, can be resorted to by way of statutory appeal under Section 52 B of the Act. It provides that any person aggrieved by a decision taken or passed under any of the provisions of the Act may prefer an Appeal to the specified Authority. It cannot be gainsaid that the Resolution dated 28th January, 2009 passed by the Committee is in the nature of firm decision of the Market Committee. Against the said decision, remedy of Appeal under Section 52B of the Act would be 3 available to the Petitioners. Keeping in mind, the expansive language of Section 52B of the Act, the Association of Traders can espouse the cause of the Traders in representative capacity and would be covered within the meaning of term “any person” aggrieved by decision, as referred to in Section 52B (1) of the Act. Thus understood, the grievance of the original Writ Petitioners is amenable to remedy of Appeal under Section 52B of the Act. In that view of the matter, there is no need to review the operative order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by us. It would be enough if we were to clarify the position that instead of “dispute under Rule 4F” as referred to in the said order, it should read as “appeal under Section 52B of the Act.” The reasons stated in the order under review will have to be understood in the context of remedy of statutory Appeal under Section 52B of the Act. 4. Counsel for the Applicants was at pains to persuade us that the amount which has become payable by the members of the Petitioner Association, recovery thereof may be allowed and that action can be taken to its logical end. We find no merits in this argument. In as much as, unless the core issue as to whether the members of the Petitioner Association are obliged to obtain license from the Market Committee were to be answered positively in favour of the Market Committee, the Market Committee cannot usurp authority unto itself to collect license fees from those persons. In other words, the decision on the issue as to whether the members of the Petitioner Association are liable to obtain licence ought to precede the proposed action of the Market Committee to recover the amount from the members of the Petitioner Association towards alleged licence fees. 5. At the end, Counsel for the Applicants submitted that even if this Court 4 were inclined to allow the Writ Petitioner to pursue remedy of Appeal under Section 52B of the Act, which incidentally would be before the same Authority where the Association has already filed dispute under Rule 4F, the said Authority may be ordered to decide the proceedings expeditiously. We have no doubt in our mind that the concerned Appellate Authority would consider the request of the Applicant for expeditious disposal of the proceedings subject, however, to Applicants co-operating for early disposal thereof. Besides, the said Authority shall permit the Writ Petitioner to convert the dispute under Rule 4F into appeal under Section 52B of the Act. 6. Our attention is invited to the last sentence appearing in our order dated 23rd March, 2010 which reads thus:- “In as much as, it is not in dispute that Director Marketing License has already been issued in favour of the Petitioners which operates throughout the State of Maharashtra.” Both parties agree that this fact pertains to companion matter which was decided on the same day being Writ Petition No. 10255/2009. In the circumstances, this sentence shall stand obliterated from the order under review, by consent. 7. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)