JUDGMENT
S.W. Puranik, J.
1. The petitioner, who is an agriculturist and who states that he is the founder and activist of Shetkari Sanghatana, an organisation of farmers working for the betterment of the farmer community in general, has preferred this petition as pro bono publico representative in the nature of public interest litigation. Amongst other reliefs, he prays for a writ directing the State of Maharashtra to supersede the present Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Pune, and to appoint an Administrator to take charge and control of the said Market Committee. He also seeks an order restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from allotting lands and from taking possession of any piece of land either acquired or under acquisition for expansion of the Market Yard and other reliefs.
2. It must be stated that this writ petitioner had preferred an identical petition before this Court which was Writ Petition No. 349 of 1991. The petitioner therein had wanted to expose the abuse of powers committed by the Market Committee in the matter of allotment of lands to various individuals and bring out several irregularities and illegalities committed by the said Market Committee. However, at the stage of admission, this Court, looking to the scope of reliefs prayed for, expressed the view that the prayers had a very wide scope and it was advisable for the petitioner to join the parties affected thereby, so that they could be heard before any relief could be granted. The petitioner was, therefore, allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition or petitions on the above lines.
3. On the basis of the said liberty, the petitioner has tendered this petition and three connected writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 2500 of 1991 relates to the general reliefs against the State of Maharashtra, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, the Director of Marketing, etc., while the three connected petitions bearing Writ Petitions Nos. 2497 of 1991, 2498 of 1991 and 2499 of 1991 are directed against individual who has secured advantage by doubtful means in the matter of allotment and transfer of lands.
4. Shri V.R. Manohar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset fairly conceded that the three connected Writ Petitions Nos. 2497 of 1991, 2498 of 1991 and 2499 of 1991, even though against specified individuals, are based on incidents of allotment or transfer which has taken place several years back and that, therefore, the petitioner does not claim any reliefs against the said individuals in those writ petitions. He submitted that the said three petitions therefore be dismissed, though he reserves his right to refer to the incidents and documents filed in those petitions. We have granted the said permission. The three connected writ petitions stand dismissed as not pressed with liberty to refer to the annexures therein.
5. As regards the main petition (Writ Petition No. 2500 of 1991), it is contended that the Market Committee, which is in a position to acquire lands as a statutory body through the State of Maharashtra, has been acquiring lands at very low prices like 25 paise per square foot from farmers and farm activists depriving them of their livelihood and rendering them destitute. Further, the Market Committee being exempt from the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is abusing this position and leasing out plots so acquired for purposes unconnected or inconsistent with the object for which they were acquired. It is contended that some of the plots have been leased out for running of private offices, beer bars and shops which have no relevance to the objective of the market area. According to the averments in para 39 of the petition, the Joint Director, Pune, had inspected the working of the Market Committee vide his report dated 5th December 1989. Certain clarifications were asked for and the report raised certain objections in respect of the working of the Market Committee, but no compliance report was made by the said Committee in respect of the objections of the method of transferring plots. According to the petitioner, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee-respondent No. 2 which should be trading in agricultural produce is in fact trading in real estate.
6. Several objections were raised on behalf of the respondents in this case as well as in the connected cases. The main objection in respect of the connected cases was on the ground of delay to the extent of 5 years to 25 years, but as already stated above, this aspect has been conceded by the petitioner and he does not press for any reliefs therein.
7. In the main petition also, a ground has been raised that the petition suffers on the ground of delay and laches. It was pointed out by the respondents that after the establishment of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, 153 acres of land were acquired in the year 1965 and by 1980 various markets were established. Between years 1980 and 1985 several wholesale markets at Pune were shifted to Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Pune. In the year 1982, draft development plan was published at Pune and the revised development plan for the Pune City was approved in January 1987, which came into force in February 1987. It was in February 1987 itself that the 2nd respondent-Agricultural Produce Market Committee passed a resolution of allotment of a plot E-15 in favour of one respondent in the connected petition. In the year 1987, a new body was elected to the Market Committee. Secondly, it was contended that there is an alternative and effective remedy available to the aggrieved parties.
8. Under section 34-A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, the State Government may, by general or special order, direct that the purchase of agricultural produce, the marketing of which is regulated in any market or market area under this Act, shall be under the supervision of such staff appointed by the State Government as it may deem to be necessary. Chapter VII-A of the said Act deals with establishment of State Agricultural Marketing Board for purposes of co-ordinating the activities of Market Committees and for exercising such powers and performing such functions as are conferred or entrusted under this Act. Such a Board shall be a body corporate. It comprises of Ministers for Co-operation, Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Director of Agriculture, and other Members. The Director of Agricultural Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune, is a Member and the Managing Director of the State Marketing Board. Section 39-J of the said Act lays down the functions and powers of the State Marketing Board which spells out the complete control and supervision of the State Marketing Board under the direct control of the Minister for Co-operation and other Officers and Members of that Board. The control which the Director of Agricultural Marketing exercises over the Market Committee is further spelt out in section 40 of the said Act. The Director has the power to inspect the accounts and offices of a Market Committee, hold inquiry into the affairs of a Market Committee, call for returns, statements or accounts, require a Committee to take into consideration the objections and suggestions, and finally, to direct certain things to be done or not to be done pending consideration.
9. We need not go into the entire scheme of the said Act. Suffice it to say that the entire Act has taken care and has formulated all necessary provisions so as to have an effective control over the working of the Market Committees in the State as also there are checks and counter-checks by way of provisions to obviate any misuse or abuse of powers by the Officers or Members of the Market Committee. There are appeals and revisions provided to any aggrieved party by any order or decision under this Act. It is in the scheme of things, therefore, that the respondents object to the petitioner coming belatedly before this Court in order to challenge certain allotments which were effected by the previous Committees many years back.
10. It was strongly contended by Shri. V.R. Manohar that in a litigation in the nature of public interest litigation, the Government is not expected to raise preliminary objections on the ground that fundamental right of the petitioner is not affected Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, , he submitted that public interest litigation is not an adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the Government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the signature tune of our Constitution. On the other hand, Shri K.K.Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the Market Committee-Respondent No. 2, has contended that the present fresh petition is under a restricted liberty granted by the High Court in the earlier writ petition, though the petitioner is claiming side reliefs again. He also submitted that the petitioner is not the directly aggrieved person in any manner in respect of either the acquisition or the allotment of lands by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee and the petitioner is merely trying to take political advantage of a litigation to advance his own purposes.
11. We have heard Shri V.R. Manohar for the petitioner, Shri K.K.Singhvi, for respondent No. 2, Shri V.A. Gangal, for respondent No.1 State, Shri R.G. Ketkar, for respondent No. 5 and Shri C.J. Sawant, for respondent No. 6. On perusal of the petition averments and the affidavits on record and on careful appreciation of the submissions tendered by all the parties, we are of the considered opinion that this petition is not liable to be entertained. However forceful the submissions and however sincere the attempt of the petitioner to expose the misuse or abuse of the powers by the Members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee and the authorities of the State may be, we are unable to be persuaded to entertain this petition for the simple reason that the petitioner has come to this Court after inordinate delay. After withdrawal of the first petition, this fresh petition also relies on stale incidents of acquisitions and allotments. A perusal of the petition shows that the averments or allegations are more or less general and academic in nature whereas the few specific instances are all events long past. The petition does not refer to any immediate events likely to take place which ought to be prevented forthwith. But based on the stale incidents the petitioner is seeking a futurist relief and asking for a drastic order of a writ directing the State to supersede the Agricultural Produce Market Committee.
12. We are also satisfied that in the entire petition there is no averment made by the petitioner that during the last 20 years he had ever approached the Government or the authorities mentioned in the said Act for redressal of any grievances or had filed any complaint before them. In the absence of any averment that the petitioner approached the Government for relief and that they failed to discharge their statutory duties under the said Act, we find that this petition is also premature and such direct approach should not ordinarily be entertained, particularly when no urgent relief is asked for. Lastly, we find that the petition cannot be treated even as a public interest litigation. The present petition revolves round cases of specific acquisitions and specific allotments and specific transfers. If any of these parties affected by acquisitions, allotments or transfers were aggrieved, they had various remedies under the said Act and they should have acted with immediacy. At any rate, as observed by Shri Justice S.P. Bharucha in YUVA v. State of Maharashtra, a public interest litigation under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution is one which is entertained to protect the rights of a person or class of persons who are not in a position to move the Court. Thus in the present petition, the persons who are the class of persons affected by acquisitions, transfers or allotments or whose rights are violated, are not such who could not resort to the Court on account of their poverty or disability or socially disadvantaged position.
13. We are, therefore, unable to entertain this petition on behalf of the petitioner who is not directly affected and if it is to be entertained as a public interest litigation, we find that the said view is not also possible. Last but not the least, the averments and pleadings show that almost every single averment has been disputed by the respondents. The Court would not entertain such a petition with disputed questions of fact. For all these reasons, we see no reason to entertain this petition.
14. Before parting with this case, however, it must be observed that the petitioner is not only an activist of the movements of agriculturists but was also appointed as Chairman of the Standing Advisory Committee on Agriculture and in that capacity the said Committee and the Chairman have the function to advise the Government on agricultural matters as representing the farming community. As per the averment at the end of para 1 of the petition, the petitioner was accorded the status of a Central Cabinet Minister. In short, the petitioner is a responsible citizen of the country interested in the welfare of agriculturists at large. The efforts that he has put in collecting this material, though belatedly, do indicate that there have been in the past certain instances of transfers which could be doubted as interested. He had also shown some irregularities in the matter of permitting transfers and re-transfers. It is, in the light of these circumstances, advisable for the State Government in exercise of its powers to nominate a Committee of responsible officers along with representatives of the business community in agricultural produce, scholars in Economics and Commerce and members representing the Co-operative Societies. They may go through the averments in these petitions and the Government should authorise them to inspect and report to the Government their suggestions in respect of the working of the Market Committee. In the mean time, the State Government would do well to advise the Director of Agricultural Marketing to exercise stricter control over the affairs of this Market Committee.
15. With the observations as above, Writ Petition No. 2500 of 1991 is dismissed.
The three connected Writ Petitions Nos. 2497 of 1991, 2498 of 1991 and 2499 of 1991 are also dismissed as being not pressed.