{"id":12079,"date":"2010-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-26T10:29:05","modified_gmt":"2015-05-26T04:59:05","slug":"ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                             1\n\n\n\n                                            \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n\n                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                WRIT PETITION NO.4783 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar,\n     Age-50 years, Occ: Business,\n     R\/o-Mondha Road, Basmat Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     Dist-Hingoli\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n                 \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                \n        Through Secretary,\n        Marketing Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,\n      \n\n     2) The Director of Marketing,\n        Central Building at Pune,\n   \n\n\n\n        \n     3) The District Deputy Registrar\n        of Co-operative Societies,\n        Hingoli,\n\n\n\n\n\n     4) The Assistant Registrar,\n        Co-operative Societies,\n        Basmat Nagar, Dist-Hingoli,\n\n\n\n\n\n     5) Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,\n        Basmat, Through its Secretary,\n        Market Yard, Basmat Nagar,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n        \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::\n                              2\n\n\n                          ...\n        Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for  Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n        Mr.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent\n        Nos.1 to 4.\n        Mr.S.V. Adwant Advocate for Respondent No.5. \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                          ...\n\n               WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n              CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1502 OF 2010\n\n\n     Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     Age-50 years, Occ: Business,\n     R\/o-Mondha Road, Basmat Nagar,\n     Dist-Hingoli\n                                     ...APPLICANT. \n\n            VERSUS             \n                \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through Secretary,\n        Marketing Department,\n      \n\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,\n   \n\n\n\n     2) The Director of Marketing,\n        Central Building at Pune,\n        \n     3) The District Deputy Registrar\n\n\n\n\n\n        of Co-operative Societies,\n        Hingoli,\n\n     4) The Assistant Registrar,\n        Co-operative Societies,\n        Basmat Nagar, Dist-Hingoli,\n\n\n\n\n\n     5) Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,\n        Basmat, Through its Secretary,\n        Market Yard, Basmat Nagar,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n        \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::\n                              3\n\n\n               WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n              CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1503 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar,\n     Age-51 years, Occ: Business,\n     R\/o-Mondha Road, Basmat Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Dist-Hingoli\n                                     ...APPLICANT. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                 \n        Through Secretary,\n        Marketing Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,\n                \n     2) The Director of Marketing,\n        Central Building at Pune,\n        \n     3) The District Deputy Registrar\n      \n\n        of Co-operative Societies,\n        Hingoli,\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Assistant Registrar,\n        Co-operative Societies,\n        Basmat Nagar, Dist-Hingoli,\n\n\n\n\n\n     5) Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,\n        Basmat, Through its Secretary,\n        Market Yard, Basmat Nagar,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n\n\n\n\n\n        \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n               WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::\n                              4\n\n\n\n              CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1966 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Age-51 years, Occ: Business,\n     R\/o-Mondha Road, Basmat Nagar,\n     Dist-Hingoli\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n\n\n\n                                     \n            VERSUS             \n\n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Through Secretary,\n        Marketing Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,\n                 \n     2) The Director of Marketing,\n        Central Building at Pune,\n                \n        \n     3) The District Deputy Registrar\n        of Co-operative Societies,\n        Hingoli,\n      \n\n\n     4) The Assistant Registrar,\n   \n\n\n\n        Co-operative Societies,\n        Basmat Nagar, Dist-Hingoli,\n\n     5) Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,\n\n\n\n\n\n        Basmat, Through its Secretary,\n        Market Yard, Basmat Nagar,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n        \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n\n     Shri Niranjan Begaji Ingole,\n     Age-60 years, Occ:Agriculture,\n     R\/o-Basmat, Dist-Hingoli.\n\n                                     ... INTERVENOR.\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::\n                              5\n\n\n               WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n              CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1969 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar,\n     Age-51 years, Occ: Business,\n     R\/o-Mondha Road, Basmat Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Dist-Hingoli\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                 \n        Through Secretary,\n        Marketing Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,\n                \n     2) The Director of Marketing,\n        Central Building at Pune,\n        \n     3) The District Deputy Registrar\n      \n\n        of Co-operative Societies,\n        Hingoli,\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Assistant Registrar,\n        Co-operative Societies,\n        Basmat Nagar, Dist-Hingoli,\n\n\n\n\n\n     5) Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,\n        Basmat, Through its Secretary,\n        Market Yard, Basmat Nagar,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n\n\n\n\n\n        \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n     Shri Radhakishan Govindrao Sabane,\n     Age-45 years, Occu:Hamal,\n     R\/o-Basmat, Dist-Hingoli.\n                                    ... INTERVENOR.\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::\n                              6\n\n\n               WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n              CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1971 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar,\n     Age-51 years, Occ: Business,\n     R\/o-Mondha Road, Basmat Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     Dist-Hingoli\n                                     ...PETITIONER. \n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n                           \n     1) The State of Maharashtra,\n                 \n        Through Secretary,\n        Marketing Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,\n                \n     2) The Director of Marketing,\n        Central Building at Pune,\n        \n     3) The District Deputy Registrar\n      \n\n        of Co-operative Societies,\n        Hingoli,\n   \n\n\n\n     4) The Assistant Registrar,\n        Co-operative Societies,\n        Basmat Nagar, Dist-Hingoli,\n\n\n\n\n\n     5) Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,\n        Basmat, Through its Secretary,\n        Market Yard, Basmat Nagar,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n\n\n\n\n\n        \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n     Shri Vishwanath Dinaji Gaware,\n     Age-52 years, Occu:Agriculture,\n     R\/o-Piprala, Tq-Basmat, \n     Dist-Hingoli.\n                                    ... INTERVENOR.\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::\n                              7\n\n      \n      \n               WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n              CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1973 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     1) Uttam Ramrao Kadam,\n        Age-56 years, Occ: Business,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n        R\/o-Pimparala, Tq-Basmat,\n        Dist-Hingoli,\n\n     2) Sakharam Dattarao Narwade,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        Age-50 years, Occu:Business,\n        R\/o-Guj, Tq-Basmat,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n                 \n     3) Sudhir Yadavrao Wankhede,\n                \n        Age-40 years, Occu:Business,\n        R\/o-Basmat, Dist-Hingoli.\n\n     4) Narayan Vaijinath Khadegaonkar,\n      \n\n        Age-35 years, Occu:Business,\n        R\/o-Khadegaon, Tq-Basmat,\n   \n\n\n\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n\n     5) Manik Tukaram Shinde,\n        Age-50 years, Occu:Business,\n\n\n\n\n\n        R\/o-Basmatnagar, Tq-Basmat,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n\n     6) Sangamnath Gangaram Rajewar,\n        Age-35 years, Occu:Business,\n        R\/o-Basmat, Dist-Hingoli.\n\n\n\n\n\n     7) Nasir Ahmed Sagir Ahmed,\n        Age-45 years, Occu:Business,\n        R\/o-Factory Road, Basmat,\n        Tq-Basmat, Dist-Hingoli.\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::\n                              8\n\n     8) Sadanand Vishwanth Yeshwante,\n        Age-45 years, Occu:Business,\n        R\/o-Lingi, Tq-Basmat,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n        Dist-Hingoli,\n\n     9) Jayashri Sudhir Wankhede,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n        Age-32 years, Occu:Business,\n        R\/o-Basmat, Tq-Basmat,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     10) Suresh Balaji Jakkalwar,\n         Age-40 years, Occu:Business,\n         R\/o-Basmat, Tq-Basmat,\n         Dist-Hingoli.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     11) Abhijit Sakharam Kulkarni,\n                 \n         Age-36 years, Occu:Business,\n         R\/o-Basmat, Tq-Basmat,\n         Dist-Hingoli.\n                \n     12) Anusaya Vijay Shingapure,\n         Age-35 years, Occu:Business,\n         R\/o-Basmat, Tq-Basmat,\n      \n\n         Dist-Hingoli.\n                                     ...APPLICANTS. \n   \n\n\n\n            VERSUS             \n\n\n\n\n\n     1) Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar,\n        Age-50 years, Occ: Business,\n        R\/o-Mondha Road, Basmat Nagar,\n        Dist-Hingoli \n                                    ...ORI.PETITIONER.\n\n\n\n\n\n     2) The State of Maharashtra,\n        Through Secretary,\n        Marketing Department,\n        Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032,\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::\n                              9\n\n     3) The Director of Marketing,\n        Central Building at Pune,\n        \n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     4) The District Deputy Registrar\n        of Co-operative Societies,\n        Hingoli,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     5) The Assistant Registrar,\n        Co-operative Societies,\n        Basmat Nagar, Dist-Hingoli,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n     6) Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,\n        Basmat, Through its Secretary,\n        Market Yard, Basmat Nagar,\n        Dist-Hingoli.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n        \n                                     ...RESPONDENTS.\n                 \n                          ...\n                \n        Mr.S.B Talekar Advocate for Applicant in Civil\n        Application No.1502 of 2010 and 1503 of 2010.\n        Mr.V.D. Salunke Advocate for Intervenor in   \n        Civil Application No.1966 of 2010.\n      \n\n        Mr.C.V.Korhalkar Advocate for Intervenor in\n        Civil Application No.1969 of 2010.\n   \n\n\n\n        Mr.A.S. Deshpande Advocate for Intervenor in\n        Civil Application No.1971 of 2010.\n        Mr.A.D. Shinde Advocate for  Applicants in\n        Civil Application No.1973 of 2010.       \n\n\n\n\n\n                          ... \n      \n\n\n\n                     CORAM:   A.M. KHANWILKAR AND \n\n\n\n\n\n                              S.S. SHINDE, JJ.\n\n                     DATE :   22ND FEBRUARY, 2010.\n                                      \n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::\n                                    10\n\n\n     JUDGMENT (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)  :\n<\/pre>\n
     1.   Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties.   Rule.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the <\/p>\n
     learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   the   matter   was <\/p>\n
     taken   up   for   final   hearing   at   the   stage   of <\/p>\n
     admission itself.\n<\/p>\n
     2)<\/p>\n
          The Petitioner claims to be a trader, being a <\/p>\n
     commission agent. He has a shop in the market yard <\/p>\n
     of   the   Respondent   No.5   Krushi   Utpanna   Bazar <\/p>\n
     Samiti,   Basmat.   The   term   of   the   market   committee <\/p>\n
     expired some time in November, 2006, however, the <\/p>\n
     same   was   extended   up   to   30th   September,   2008   by <\/p>\n
     the   appropriate   Authority   vide   order   dated   23rd <\/p>\n
     March,   2007,   14th   November,   2007   and   lastly   on <\/p>\n
     25th   May,   2008.   Admittedly,   there   is   no   further <\/p>\n
     extension   to   the   committee   after   30th   September, <\/p>\n
     2008.   Nevertheless,   the   same   committee   continued <\/p>\n
     to   manage   the   affairs   of   the   Respondent   No.5 <\/p>\n
     committee.   It   is   stated   that   the   committee <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
     published   a   list   of   327   members   who   were   either <\/p>\n
     traders or commission agents or shop keepers in B <\/p>\n
     class   during   the   year   2005-2006.   This   list   was <\/p>\n
     published on 12th August, 2006. It is stated that <\/p>\n
     the Petitioner took objection regarding renewal of <\/p>\n
     license   in   respect   of   113   members   named   in   the <\/p>\n
     said   list.   According   to   the   Petitioner   the   said <\/p>\n
     members were neither resident of Basmat within the <\/p>\n
     area of operation of the Respondent No.5 Committee <\/p>\n
     nor were engaged in the business in the said area <\/p>\n
     during   the   relevant   period.   That   is   evident   from <\/p>\n
     the   fact   that   none   of   them   paid   the   market   fees <\/p>\n
     during the relevant period.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   In support of the stand that the said persons <\/p>\n
     were   not   residents   of   Basmat,   the   Petitioner <\/p>\n
     relies   on   the   letter   dated   14th   January,   2009, <\/p>\n
     issued   under   the   signature   of   Chief   Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer of Municipal Council, Basmat Nagar, which <\/p>\n
     mentions   that   49   persons   named   by   the   Petitioner <\/p>\n
     were   not   residents   of   Basmat   Nagar.   Insofar   as <\/p>\n
     assertion   that   the   named   persons   have   not   paid <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
     market   fees   during   the   relevant   period,   reliance <\/p>\n
     is placed on the communication dated 22nd January, <\/p>\n
     2009   issued   under   the   signature   of   the   Secretary <\/p>\n
     of the Respondent No.5 Committee addressed to the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner.   Along   with   the   said   communication,   a <\/p>\n
     chart indicating the payment of market fees during <\/p>\n
     the   period   2004-2005,   2005-2006   and   2006-2007 <\/p>\n
     against   the   name   of   each   of   the   153   persons   was <\/p>\n
     enclosed.   As   per   the   communication   dated   22nd <\/p>\n
     January,   2009,   it   is   obvious   that   the   Respondent <\/p>\n
     No.5 accepts the position that out of 153 persons <\/p>\n
     named  by  the Petitioner,   only 2 have  paid  market <\/p>\n
     fees   for   all   the   three   years   and   12     paid   the <\/p>\n
     market fees for one year or more for the relevant <\/p>\n
     period between 2004-2005 to 2006-2007. Whereas, at <\/p>\n
     least 139 persons have not paid the market fees at <\/p>\n
     all during that period.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   It is the case of the Petitioner that he took <\/p>\n
     up   the   issue   before   the   Assistant   Registrar, <\/p>\n
     complaining about at least 113 license holders who <\/p>\n
     were purportedly traders, were not doing business <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
     within   the   area   of   operation   of   Respondent   No.5 <\/p>\n
     Committee.   The   Assistant   Registrar,   by   his <\/p>\n
     communication   dated   9th   May,   2008   informed   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner   that   after   due   enquiry,   it   has   been <\/p>\n
     found that out of the 113 license holders, only 13 <\/p>\n
     license   holders   were   ineligible   and   for   which <\/p>\n
     reasons their licenses have been cancelled by the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.5   Committee   by   order   dated   1st <\/p>\n
     April, 2008. In other words, the Petitioner partly <\/p>\n
     succeeded   in   the   enquiry   before   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
     Registrar   to   the   extent   of   13   license   holders.\n<\/p>\n
     Insofar as remaining 100 license holders (traders) <\/p>\n
     are concerned, the Assistant Registrar, after due <\/p>\n
     enquiry, rejected the claim of the Petitioner. It <\/p>\n
     is noticed that this order has become final.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   Some   time  on   18th  December,   2008   provisional <\/p>\n
     list   in   respect   of   traders   constituency   of   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.5 Committee was published which was <\/p>\n
     prelude  to the  conduct  of elections  to  elect  new <\/p>\n
     Committee. The Petitioner on 30th December, 2008, <\/p>\n
     made   application   to   the   Secretary   of   the <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.5   Committee   under   the   Right   to <\/p>\n
     Information Act, 2005 calling upon the Respondent <\/p>\n
     No.5   to   furnish   details   about   the   named   153 <\/p>\n
     license holders. In response to the said enquiry, <\/p>\n
     the   Secretary   of   the   Respondent   No.5   Committee <\/p>\n
     furnished   the   requisite   information   vide   his <\/p>\n
     communication   dated   22nd   January,   2009   and   also <\/p>\n
     forwarded   the   chart   indicating   the   addresses   and <\/p>\n
     the   amount   of   market   fee   paid   by   each   of   the <\/p>\n
     member   during   the   period   2004-2005   to   2006-2007.\n<\/p>\n
     As  aforesaid,  from  this chart  it  is noticed  that <\/p>\n
     only 2 license holders at sr. Nos. 34 and 146 paid <\/p>\n
     market fees for all the three financial years and <\/p>\n
     12   license   holders   paid   market   fees   for   one   or <\/p>\n
     more years.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    In response to the draft voters list, several <\/p>\n
     members   of   the   Respondent   No.5   Committee   raised <\/p>\n
     objection   regarding   the   inclusion   of   names   of <\/p>\n
     ineligible persons in the list of license holders <\/p>\n
     therein.   The   objections   filed   in   the   prescribed <\/p>\n
     form   by   different   members   have   been   placed   on <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
     record as Exhibit H collectively. By this separate <\/p>\n
     17   objections   filed   by   the   respective   members, <\/p>\n
     objections were taken regarding wrongful inclusion <\/p>\n
     of in all 209 ineligible persons.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   Insofar as the Petitioner before this Court is <\/p>\n
     concerned,   he   took   objection   only   in   respect   of <\/p>\n
     wrongful inclusion of names of 10 persons named by <\/p>\n
     him who were at serial Nos. 3, 5 to 9, 337, 339, <\/p>\n
     340   and   342   respectively   in   the   traders <\/p>\n
     constituency   on   the   ground   that   the   said   persons <\/p>\n
     were not doing any business nor have had any shops <\/p>\n
     within   the   area   of   operation   of   Respondent   No.5 <\/p>\n
     Committee.   In   support   of   the   contention   that   the <\/p>\n
     said persons did not have any shop within the area <\/p>\n
     of   operation   of   Respondent   No.5   Committee,   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner   placed   reliance   on   the   communication <\/p>\n
     dated  9th  January,   2009 received  by him  from  the <\/p>\n
     Government Labour Officer under the provisions of <\/p>\n
     the   Right   to   Information   Act,   2005.   It   mentions <\/p>\n
     that   out   of   the   160   named   persons   in   his <\/p>\n
     application,   only   8   persons   were   possessing <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
     license under the Mumbai Shops and Establishments <\/p>\n
     Act,   1948.   The   said   communication   also   records <\/p>\n
     that   in   all   probabilities,   the   shops   of   other <\/p>\n
     named   persons   was   either   outside   the   Basmat <\/p>\n
     Municipal  Council  area  or in the  rural  area,  for <\/p>\n
     which reason they have not obtained license under <\/p>\n
     the Mumbai Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     As   aforesaid,   the   Petitioner  took   objection <\/p>\n
     only in respect of 10 persons named in the draft <\/p>\n
     voters list, referred to in his application dated <\/p>\n
     16th January, 2009. The District Deputy Registrar, <\/p>\n
     disposed of all the objections together by common <\/p>\n
     order   dated   20th   February,   2009   on   the   finding <\/p>\n
     that   all   the   17   objections   filed   by   different <\/p>\n
     members  in respect   of in all  209 names  appearing <\/p>\n
     in   the   draft   voters   list   in   traders   constituency <\/p>\n
     raised similar grounds. He has held that detailed <\/p>\n
     enquiry   was   undertaken   and   it   was   noticed   that <\/p>\n
     objections regarding only 6 names can be sustained <\/p>\n
     as   the   record   does   not   indicate   that   necessary <\/p>\n
     steps were taken for renewal of their licenses. He <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
     further   found   that   in   respect   of   remaining   203 <\/p>\n
     traders named in the draft voters list, all paper <\/p>\n
     formalities for renewal of their licenses as well <\/p>\n
     as payment of fees by them has been fulfilled, for <\/p>\n
     which  reason   it was not  possible   to delete  their <\/p>\n
     names   from   the   voters   list.   Consistent   with   this <\/p>\n
     finding,   the   17   objections   were   disposed   of   by <\/p>\n
     deleting   the   names   of   only   6   voters   from   the <\/p>\n
     voters   list   out   of   the   objections   to   209   names.\n<\/p>\n
     This   decision   of   the   District   Deputy   Registrar <\/p>\n
     dated   20th   February,   2009   is   subject   matter   of <\/p>\n
     challenge in the present Petition as the names of <\/p>\n
     203 voters have been retained in the voters list.\n<\/p>\n
     9.   The final voters list accordingly includes the <\/p>\n
     names   of   remaining   203   persons   in   the   traders <\/p>\n
     constituency.  In the present  Petition,  therefore, <\/p>\n
     besides   challenging   the   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
     District   Deputy   Registrar   dated   20th   February, <\/p>\n
     2009, the Petitioner prays for appropriate writ to <\/p>\n
     direct   the   District   Deputy   Registrar   of   Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative   Societies   (Respondent   No.3)   and   the <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                    18<\/span><\/p>\n
     Assistant   Registrar,   Co-operative   Societies <\/p>\n
     (Respondent   No.4)   to   hold   the   enquiry   regarding <\/p>\n
     the validity of the licenses issued to 153 members <\/p>\n
     whose   names   have   been   mentioned   in   Exhibit   G   to <\/p>\n
     the   Petition   and   further   to   initiate   proceedings <\/p>\n
     against   them   to   cancel   their   licenses   from   the <\/p>\n
     final   voters   list   of   the   traders   constituency   of <\/p>\n
     the Respondent No.5 Committee and to delete their <\/p>\n
     names from the final voters list.\n<\/p>\n
     10. The   present   Petition   has   been   filed   on   7th <\/p>\n
     July, 2009. The Petition as originally filed, the <\/p>\n
     order   dated   20th   February,   2009   was   not <\/p>\n
     specifically   challenged.   The   Petitioner   has <\/p>\n
     amended the Petition on 8th February, 2010 and has <\/p>\n
     now challenged the said order dated 20th February, <\/p>\n
     2009   passed   by   the   Respondent   No.3.   Besides <\/p>\n
     amending   the   Petition,   the   Petitioner   has   taken <\/p>\n
     out Civil Application No.1503 of 2010 praying for <\/p>\n
     liberty to allow them to implead 153 members named <\/p>\n
     in Exhibit G to the Petition as Respondents in the <\/p>\n
     present Petition. This application has been taken <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                    19<\/span><\/p>\n
     out in the context of preliminary objection raised <\/p>\n
     on behalf of the Respondents during the course of <\/p>\n
     hearing   regarding   the   maintainability   of   the <\/p>\n
     Petition   due   to   non   impleadment   of   the   said   153 <\/p>\n
     persons   as   party   Respondents   even   though   the <\/p>\n
     relief   claimed   by   the   Petitioner   was   to   directly <\/p>\n
     affect   them.   Besides,   the   Petitioner   has   filed <\/p>\n
     Civil   Application   No.1502   of   2010   praying   for <\/p>\n
     interim   injunction   restraining   the   said   153 <\/p>\n
     members named in Exhibit G to the Petition, whose <\/p>\n
     names   are   included   in   final   voters   list   from <\/p>\n
     participating in the ensuing election process till <\/p>\n
     the disposal of this Petition.\n<\/p>\n
     11. This   Petition   as   well   as   Civil   Applications <\/p>\n
     have   been   resisted   by   the   Respondents.   The <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.5   relies   on   the   affidavit   of <\/p>\n
     Balasaheb   Gangadharrao   Katore,   its   Secretary, <\/p>\n
     dated  1st  February,  2010.  In the  first  place,  it <\/p>\n
     is asserted that the Petitioner does not possess a <\/p>\n
     valid   license   as   commission   agent   after   31st <\/p>\n
     August,  2008  and, therefore  has  no locus  to file <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                    20<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   present   Petition.   It   is   further   stated   that <\/p>\n
     all  licenses   have been  granted   or renewed  by  the <\/p>\n
     Committee   as   per   Section   7   of   the   Maharashtra <\/p>\n
     Agricultural   Produce   Marketing   (Development   and <\/p>\n
     Regulation)   Act,   1963   (hereinafter   referred   to <\/p>\n
     ‘the   Act   of   1963’)   read   with   Rule   6     of   the <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra   Agricultural   Produce   Marketing <\/p>\n
     (Regulation)  Rules,  1967  (hereinafter  referred  to <\/p>\n
     as ‘the Rules of 1967’), in favour of the traders <\/p>\n
     covered   under   category   B   only   after   satisfying <\/p>\n
     that they have complied with all the requirements <\/p>\n
     necessary for issuance\/renewal of the license, by <\/p>\n
     following due process of law. The said Respondent <\/p>\n
     placed   on   record   a   chart   indicating   the   date   of <\/p>\n
     issuance   of   license,   date   of   renewal   thereof   and <\/p>\n
     the date on which license fee has been paid, along <\/p>\n
     with the names and addresses of the concerned 153 <\/p>\n
     license holders. It is asserted that names of each <\/p>\n
     of   these   153   license   holders   are   found   in   the <\/p>\n
     register   maintained   by   the   Committee   as   on   31st <\/p>\n
     December, 2007 and was sent at least three months <\/p>\n
     before   the   date   to   the   Respondent   No.3   for <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                      21<\/span><\/p>\n
     finalization of the voters list. It is stated that <\/p>\n
     as   per   the   amended   provisions,   the   names   of <\/p>\n
     traders   who   were   holding   licenses   for   two <\/p>\n
     preceding years are required to be enlisted in the <\/p>\n
     voters   list   and   therefore   their   names   were <\/p>\n
     considered   by   the   Committee   while   preparing   the <\/p>\n
     list of voters forwarded to the Respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
     12. According  to   the   Respondent   No.5,  the  voters <\/p>\n
     list which is published under Rule 36 of the Rules <\/p>\n
     of 1967 is conclusive evidence for the purposes of <\/p>\n
     determining as to whether any person is qualified <\/p>\n
     to   vote   as   is   provided   by   Rule   37   and   for   which <\/p>\n
     reason   the   grievance   of   the   Petitioner   cannot   be <\/p>\n
     looked   into   at   this   stage.   It   is   further   stated <\/p>\n
     that the Petitioner had raised objection regarding <\/p>\n
     wrongful renewal of license of 113 license holders <\/p>\n
     and that enquiry was undertaken by the appropriate <\/p>\n
     Authority   who   accepted   the   objection   of   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner   only   in   respect   of   13   licensees   and <\/p>\n
     those licenses were eventually cancelled. In other <\/p>\n
     words, the challenge to the renewal of license of <\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                    22<\/span><\/p>\n
     remaining 100 licensees stood negatived after due <\/p>\n
     enquiry.   Nevertheless,   the   Petitioner   has   once <\/p>\n
     again   included   the   names   of   all   the   113   traders <\/p>\n
     who are part of the list of 153 traders Exhibit G.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,   it   is   not   possible   to   reopen   the <\/p>\n
     enquiry in respect of those 113 traders.\n<\/p>\n
     13. The   Respondent   Nos.   3   and   4   have   filed <\/p>\n
     affidavit   of   Ashok   Ramchandra   Giri,   Assistant <\/p>\n
     Registrar,   who   has   more   or   less   supported   the <\/p>\n
     stand  of  the Respondent  No.5  and  has stated  that <\/p>\n
     153   members   are   eligible   and   their   licenses   have <\/p>\n
     been   renewed   from   time   to   time.   It   is   further <\/p>\n
     stated   that   the   election   programme   has   already <\/p>\n
     commenced with publication of notification on 31st <\/p>\n
     December,   2009   and   it   may   not   be   appropriate   to <\/p>\n
     interfere   with   the   same   at   this   stage.   Further, <\/p>\n
     pursuant   to   the   said   notification,   183   members <\/p>\n
     submitted their nominations and after scrutiny and <\/p>\n
     withdrawal,   39   members   are   contesting   as <\/p>\n
     candidates and the election has been scheduled on <\/p>\n
     21st February, 2010. Therefore, no interference is <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                    23<\/span><\/p>\n
     warranted at the hands of this Hon’ble Court.\n<\/p>\n
     14. The Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavits <\/p>\n
     dated 16th February, 2010 and 17th February, 2010 <\/p>\n
     reiterating   his   stand   and   further   asserting   that <\/p>\n
     the wrongful inclusion of ineligible voters was at <\/p>\n
     the   behest   of   the   present   Chairman     who   is   very <\/p>\n
     powerful   and   influential   person   and   close <\/p>\n
     confident   of   Ex-Minister   and   the   sitting   M.L.A.\n<\/p>\n
     The   Petitioner   has   refuted   the   stand   of   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.5   that   the   Petitioner   is   not   a <\/p>\n
     trader   and   did   not   have   a   valid   license.   The <\/p>\n
     Petitioner   has   relied   on   the   fact   that   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner was called upon to pay the license fees <\/p>\n
     on 5th May, 2009 and that the Petitioner has paid <\/p>\n
     amount   towards   the   shop   rent   as   recently   as   on <\/p>\n
     14th   January,   2010.   Besides,   the   Petitioner   has <\/p>\n
     filed   his   nomination   form   and   is   contesting   from <\/p>\n
     the traders constituency which has been accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     It   is   stated   that   inspite   of   this   a   false   and <\/p>\n
     misleading   plea   is   taken   by   the   Respondent   No.5 <\/p>\n
     about the locus of the Petitioner. The Petitioner <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                      24<\/span><\/p>\n
     has  asserted   that 153  persons  named  in  Exhibit  G <\/p>\n
     were neither residing in the area of operation of <\/p>\n
     the   Respondent   No.5   Committee   nor   were   doing <\/p>\n
     business  in the  said  area,  which  is evident  from <\/p>\n
     the   fact   that   no   market   fee   has   been   paid   by   at <\/p>\n
     least   139   persons   out   of   the   153   persons   and <\/p>\n
     market   fee     only   for   one   year   or   more   has   been <\/p>\n
     paid by 12 persons. It is submitted that the fact <\/p>\n
     that   the   said   persons   have   failed   to   pay   market <\/p>\n
     fees,   presupposes   that   they   were   not   doing   the <\/p>\n
     business   in   the   area   of   operation   of     the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.5   Committee   during   the   relevant <\/p>\n
     period and for which reason the action of renewing <\/p>\n
     their   license   by     the   Respondent   No.5   Committee <\/p>\n
     was   in   excess   of   authority   and   contrary   to   the <\/p>\n
     provisions   of   law.   According   to   the   Petitioner <\/p>\n
     even though the election programme has commenced, <\/p>\n
     that would not be an impediment to set right the <\/p>\n
     defective   voters   list   relating   to   traders <\/p>\n
     constituency which consists of 327 members, out of <\/p>\n
     which  grant\/renewal  of  license  to as  many as  139 <\/p>\n
     persons   who   have   failed   to   pay   any   market   fee <\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                     25<\/span><\/p>\n
     during the relevant period as also 12 persons who <\/p>\n
     have   paid   market   fee   only   for   one   year   or   more, <\/p>\n
     has   become   questionable.   Since   the   grant\/renewal <\/p>\n
     of license of such persons itself was illegal, it <\/p>\n
     would   necessarily   follow   that   names   of   those <\/p>\n
     persons could not be continued in the voters list <\/p>\n
     of   eligible   voters.   It   is   submitted   that   since <\/p>\n
     large   number   of   licenses   have   been   renewed   in <\/p>\n
     excess   of   authority,   that   would   have   material <\/p>\n
     impact on the validity of elections in respect of <\/p>\n
     traders   constituency   and   at   any   rate   such <\/p>\n
     elections   cannot   be   termed   as   free   and   fair <\/p>\n
     elections.\n<\/p>\n
     15. During   the   pendency   of   this   Petition,   four <\/p>\n
     Intervention   Applications   have   been   filed,   being <\/p>\n
     Civil   Application   No.1966   of   2010   by   Niranjan <\/p>\n
     Begaji   Ingole,   Civil   Application   No.1969   of   2010 <\/p>\n
     by Radhakishan Govindrao Sabane, Civil Application <\/p>\n
     No.1971   of   2010   by   Vishwanath   Dinaji   Gaware   and <\/p>\n
     Civil Application No.1973 of 2010 by Uttam Ramrao <\/p>\n
     Kadam and 11 others. Insofar as Civil Application <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                    26<\/span><\/p>\n
     Nos. 1966 of 2010, 1969 of 2010 and 1971 of 2010 <\/p>\n
     are concerned, the same have been filed by members <\/p>\n
     of   the   Respondent   No.5   Committee   falling   under <\/p>\n
     different   constituencies.   These   applications   have <\/p>\n
     been filed on the apprehension that the Court may <\/p>\n
     accede   to   the   request   of   the   Petitioner   to   stay <\/p>\n
     the   entire   election.   However,   it   is   noticed   that <\/p>\n
     the   incidental   relief   claimed   in   the   present <\/p>\n
     Petition to question the validity of the election <\/p>\n
     process   is   only   in   respect   of   the   traders <\/p>\n
     constituency.   Even   the   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner,   in   all   fairness,   stated   before   the <\/p>\n
     Court   that   the   Petitioner   was   not   interested   in <\/p>\n
     staying the entire election process but wanted his <\/p>\n
     grievance to be redressed in respect of challenge <\/p>\n
     to   the   inclusion   of   ineligible   voters   of   traders <\/p>\n
     constituency.  In the circumstances,  nothing  would <\/p>\n
     survive   for   consideration   in   these   three   Civil <\/p>\n
     Applications.\n<\/p>\n
     16. Insofar   as   Civil   Application   No.1973   of   2010 <\/p>\n
     is   concerned,   the   same   is   filed   by   persons   who <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   27<\/span><\/p>\n
     have   been   named   in   the   list   of   153   persons, <\/p>\n
     Exhibit   G   stated   to   be   ineligible   for   grant\/ <\/p>\n
     renewal   of   license.   According   to   them,   in   the <\/p>\n
     light of decision of our High Court in the case of <\/p>\n
     Shree   Adinath   Sahakari   Sakhar   Karkhana   Ltd.   and  <\/p>\n
     another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006  <\/p>\n
     (6) Mh. L.J. Page 309, the Writ Petition should be <\/p>\n
     dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. We <\/p>\n
     would consider this aspect a little later.\n<\/p>\n
     17. Before proceeding further, we  would think it <\/p>\n
     apposite   to   deal   with   the   preliminary   objection <\/p>\n
     regarding  the  locus  of the  Petitioner  as he does <\/p>\n
     not   possess   a   valid   license.   This   objection   is <\/p>\n
     founded  on the  contents  of  Form No.1  produced  by <\/p>\n
     the Petitioner at Exhibit A to the Petition, which <\/p>\n
     discloses   that   the   license   issued   to   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner   was   to   remain   valid   till   31st   August, <\/p>\n
     2008   and   there   is   no   endorsement   of   further <\/p>\n
     renewal   thereof.   We   are   intrigued   by   the   stand <\/p>\n
     taken   by   the   Respondent   No.5   Committee   in   this <\/p>\n
     behalf.   For,   the   Respondent   No.5   was   obviously <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    28<\/span><\/p>\n
     aware  that  the  Petitioner  had paid  rent  for shop <\/p>\n
     No.13 in the sum of Rs.59,930\/- as recently as on <\/p>\n
     14th January, 2010. Besides, the Secretary of the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.5 had called upon the Petitioner to <\/p>\n
     pay market fee and supervision fee and in any case <\/p>\n
     the Petitioner is one of the candidate contesting <\/p>\n
     the ensuing election and his nomination   has been <\/p>\n
     accepted   from   traders   constituency   by   the <\/p>\n
     Returning Officer on 16th January, 2010. It is too <\/p>\n
     late   in   the   day   for   the   Respondent   No.5   to   now <\/p>\n
     contend that the Petitioner has no locus to pursue <\/p>\n
     the   present   action.   Accordingly,   we   reject   this <\/p>\n
     preliminary objection.\n<\/p>\n
     18. Insofar   as   the   grievance   made   by   the <\/p>\n
     Applicants   in   Civil   Application   No.1973   of   2010 <\/p>\n
     that the Writ Petition should be dismissed for non <\/p>\n
     joinder of necessary parties, we would dispose of <\/p>\n
     the same on three counts. Firstly, because we find <\/p>\n
     merits   in the stand  taken  by  the Petitioner  that <\/p>\n
     the   Petitioner   is   not   seeking   relief   directly <\/p>\n
     against   the   said   persons.   The   Petitioner   has <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   29<\/span><\/p>\n
     merely asked for direction against Respondent Nos.\n<\/p>\n
     3   and   4   to   hold   enquiry   into   the   question   of <\/p>\n
     validity   of   licenses   issued   to   the   named   153 <\/p>\n
     persons   mentioned   in   Exhibit   G   and   to   initiate <\/p>\n
     action   to   cancel   their   licenses   by   following   due <\/p>\n
     process  of law.  The interest  of said  153  members <\/p>\n
     would be affected only if Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 <\/p>\n
     were   to   initiate   proceedings   for   cancellation   of <\/p>\n
     their licenses by following due process of law and <\/p>\n
     not   before   that.   So   long   as   the   licenses <\/p>\n
     granted\/renewed in favour of the said persons were <\/p>\n
     in   force,   they   would   continue   to   remain   in   the <\/p>\n
     voters   list   subject   to   fulfilling   other <\/p>\n
     requirements if any. It is only upon cancellation <\/p>\n
     of   their   license,   the   names   of   concerned   members <\/p>\n
     would be struck off from the voters list and that <\/p>\n
     would   happen   only   after   due   enquiry   to   be <\/p>\n
     initiated   by   the   appropriate   Authority   against <\/p>\n
     such   persons.   Secondly,   we   find   that   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner was not claiming relief of interdicting <\/p>\n
     the election process as such but has raised issues <\/p>\n
     regarding   improper   grant\/   renewal   of   license   by <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    30<\/span><\/p>\n
     the Respondent No.5 Committee in favour of persons <\/p>\n
     who   were   ineligible   and   which   action   was   in   the <\/p>\n
     teeth   of   the   mandatory   provisions   since   the   said <\/p>\n
     persons were not residing in the area of operation <\/p>\n
     of  the Respondent No.5 Committee and also did not <\/p>\n
     carry on any business in that area and have failed <\/p>\n
     to pay the market fee for the relevant period. In <\/p>\n
     the   case   of      Shree   Adinath   Sahakari   Sakhar  <\/p>\n
     Karkhana Ltd. and another vs. State of Maharashtra  <\/p>\n
     and others (supra),  the challenge was directly to <\/p>\n
     the wrongful inclusion of 4139 individuals in the <\/p>\n
     final   voters   list   as   members   of   the   Petitioner <\/p>\n
     society therein. Be that as it may, the Petitioner <\/p>\n
     has   filed   Civil   Application   No.1503   of   2010   and <\/p>\n
     has sought liberty to implead all the 153 members <\/p>\n
     in the traders constituency referred to in Exhibit <\/p>\n
     G   as   party   Respondents   to   the   Writ   Petition.   In <\/p>\n
     the   light   of   the   said   Civil   Application,   the <\/p>\n
     objection raised by the Intervenors does not have <\/p>\n
     any force.\n<\/p>\n
     19. Reverting   to   the   merits,       the   grievance   of <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   31<\/span><\/p>\n
     the Petitioner is that  grant\/ renewal of licenses <\/p>\n
     to   the   concerned   persons,     is   contrary   to   the <\/p>\n
     mandate of law and that the Respondents have acted <\/p>\n
     in   excess   of   authority.   According   to   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner, only  persons  residing  within    the<\/p>\n
     area   of   operation   of   the   Respondent   No.5 <\/p>\n
     Committee,   were   entitled   for   grant\/   renewal   of <\/p>\n
     license.   Secondly,   they   should   be   carrying   on <\/p>\n
     business   within   the   area   of   operation   during   the <\/p>\n
     relevant   period,   which   is   a   condition   precedent <\/p>\n
     for   renewal   of   their   license.   The   fact   of   non <\/p>\n
     payment   of   market   fees   by   the   concerned   153 <\/p>\n
     persons to   the Respondent No.5 Committee, during <\/p>\n
     the relevant period presupposes that they were not <\/p>\n
     carrying   on   business   within   the   market   area.   In <\/p>\n
     such   a   situation,   the   Respondents   in   the   first <\/p>\n
     place ought not to have renewed their licenses and <\/p>\n
     in   any   case   ought   to   have   initiated   action   for <\/p>\n
     cancellation   or   suspension   of   licenses   qua   such <\/p>\n
     persons  and if  adverse  decision  was to  be taken, <\/p>\n
     such persons would cease to be in the voters list.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   32<\/span><\/p>\n
     20. Before we analyze these aspects, it needs to <\/p>\n
     recapitulated   that   the   list   of   327   traders\/ <\/p>\n
     licensees   whose   licenses   were   granted\/renewed <\/p>\n
     during the year 2005-2006 was published in August, <\/p>\n
     2006. The Petitioner filed objection in respect of <\/p>\n
     113   licensees   named   in   the   said   list.   That <\/p>\n
     objection   was   considered   by   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
     Registrar and accepted only in part to the extent <\/p>\n
     of 13 license holders. In respect of remaining 100 <\/p>\n
     license holders the Assistant Registrar noted that <\/p>\n
     their   license   has   been   renewed   by   the   Committee <\/p>\n
     and they have paid the fees. In other words, the <\/p>\n
     inclusion   of   remaining   100   members   in   the   said <\/p>\n
     list   was   upheld   by   the   Assistant   Registrar.   This <\/p>\n
     decision   of   the   Assistant   Registrar   has   attained <\/p>\n
     finality.   By   the   same   order,   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
     Registrar,   however,   found   that   only   13   members <\/p>\n
     were   ineligible   for   renewal   of   license   and <\/p>\n
     therefore   their   licenses   were   cancelled   on   1st <\/p>\n
     April, 2008. Significantly, the names of those 100 <\/p>\n
     members   whose   grant\/renewal   of   license   has   been <\/p>\n
     upheld,   are   not   forthcoming.   According   to   the <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    33<\/span><\/p>\n
     Respondents, the Petitioner in the list annexed at <\/p>\n
     Exhibit G of 153 members, has once again included <\/p>\n
     the names of 113 members in relation to whom after <\/p>\n
     enquiry the Assistant Registrar rejected the claim <\/p>\n
     of the Petitioner qua 100 license holders.\n<\/p>\n
     21. Further,   it   is   noticed   that   the   Petitioner <\/p>\n
     filed   objection   after   the   publication   of   draft <\/p>\n
     voters list and questioned the wrongful inclusion <\/p>\n
     of   only   10   members   as   mentioned   in   document <\/p>\n
     annexed at Exhibit H collectively at page 70. The <\/p>\n
     other 16 objections in respect of 199 members were <\/p>\n
     taken by 16 different applicants. Those applicants <\/p>\n
     have   not   questioned   the   decision   of   the   District <\/p>\n
     Deputy Registrar dated 20th February, 2009 before <\/p>\n
     us. Indeed, the Petitioner can legitimately pursue <\/p>\n
     his   grievance   at   least   in   respect   of   10   members <\/p>\n
     referred   to   in   his   objection   filed   before   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.3.   Insofar   as   those   10   persons   are <\/p>\n
     concerned,   the   Respondent   No.3   has   negatived   the <\/p>\n
     objection   filed   by   the   Petitioner   on   the   finding <\/p>\n
     that   those   persons   have   completed   all   paper <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    34<\/span><\/p>\n
     formalities   and   have   also   paid   the   fees   to     the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.5   Committee.   That   is   a   finding   of <\/p>\n
     fact,   which   cannot   be   interfered   with   in   this <\/p>\n
     proceedings unless it is perverse. From the chart <\/p>\n
     appended   to   the   reply   affidavit   filed   by     the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.5 Committee, it is seen that license <\/p>\n
     has   been   granted\/   renewed   in   favour   of   each   of <\/p>\n
     these 153 members and they have paid fees in that <\/p>\n
     behalf   on different  dates  much  prior  to the cut-\n<\/p>\n
     off   date   i.e.   31st   December,   2007.   We   have   no <\/p>\n
     reason to doubt the stand taken by the Respondents <\/p>\n
     that   the   objection   to   the   names   of   said   113 <\/p>\n
     persons   culminated   with   the   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
     Assistant   Registrar   dated   9th   May,   2008.   Out   of <\/p>\n
     the   153   persons   referred   to   in   Exhibit   G,   on <\/p>\n
     excluding   names   of   said   113   persons   which   are <\/p>\n
     common,   the   Petitioner   could   have   made   grievance <\/p>\n
     in   respect   of   40   remaining   license   holders.\n<\/p>\n
     However,   the   Petitioner   challenged   inclusion   of <\/p>\n
     only 10 persons in the voters list, on the ground <\/p>\n
     that grant\/ renewal of license in their favour was <\/p>\n
     inappropriate.   That   challenge   has   been   examined <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                     35<\/span><\/p>\n
     and   negatived   by   the   Respondent   No.3.   The <\/p>\n
     Petitioner cannot be heard to make grievance about <\/p>\n
     the   wrongful   inclusion   of   other   names   in   the <\/p>\n
     voters   list   in   the   present   Petition,   especially <\/p>\n
     when   other   16   objectors   who   had   objected   to   the <\/p>\n
     names   of   in   all   199   members,   have   not   chosen   to <\/p>\n
     assail   the   decision   of   the   Respondent   No.3.   Thus <\/p>\n
     understood,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the <\/p>\n
     challenge  to  the draft  voters  list  in respect  of <\/p>\n
     wrongful   inclusion   of   153   trader\/   members   must <\/p>\n
     fail.   That,   however,   would   not   preclude   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioner   to   pursue   his   remedy   against   the <\/p>\n
     appropriate authority to enquire into the validity <\/p>\n
     of renewal of licenses of those 153 persons and\/or <\/p>\n
     to initiate action to cancel their licenses. In as <\/p>\n
     much   as,   the     consideration   for   examining   the <\/p>\n
     objection regarding the wrongful inclusion in the <\/p>\n
     voters list is limited to see as to whether that <\/p>\n
     persons has had a license in force on the relevant <\/p>\n
     date and paid the fees.\n<\/p>\n
     22. Insofar as the argument of the Petitioner that <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                     36<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   renewal   of   license   was   inappropriate   as   the <\/p>\n
     concerned   members   were   not   residing   within   the <\/p>\n
     area   of   operation   of     the   Respondent   No.5 <\/p>\n
     Committee,   we   find   that   neither   the   Act   nor   the <\/p>\n
     Rules   or   bye-law   make   such   a   provision.   On   the <\/p>\n
     other hand, Section 2 (1) (t) of the Act of 1963 <\/p>\n
     defines   the   term   “trader”   to   mean   a   person   who <\/p>\n
     buys or sells agricultural produce, as a principal <\/p>\n
     or   as   duly   authorized   agent   of   one   or   more <\/p>\n
     persons.   Section   6   of   the   Act   of   1963   provides <\/p>\n
     that,   no   person   shall,   on   and   after   the   date   on <\/p>\n
     which   the   declaration   is   made   under   sub-section <\/p>\n
     (1)   of   section   4,   without   or   otherwise   than   in <\/p>\n
     conformity   with   the   terms   and   conditions   of,   a <\/p>\n
     license can use any place in the market area for <\/p>\n
     the marketing of the declared agricultural produce <\/p>\n
     or operate in the market area.  Sub-section (2) of <\/p>\n
     Section 6 provides that nothing in sub-section (1) <\/p>\n
     shall   apply   to   sales   by   retail;   sales   by   an <\/p>\n
     agriculturist   who   sells   his   own   produce;   nor   to <\/p>\n
     sales   to   by   a   person   where   he   himself   sells   to <\/p>\n
     another   who   buys   for   his   personal   consumption   or <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   37<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   consumption   of   any   member   of   his   family.\n<\/p>\n
     Section   7   deals   with   the   mechanism   of   grant   or <\/p>\n
     renewal of licenses. It stipulates that the market <\/p>\n
     committee, after due inquiries, may grant or renew <\/p>\n
     a license for the use of any place in the market <\/p>\n
     area for marketing of the agricultural produce or <\/p>\n
     for   operating   therein   as   a   trader,   commission <\/p>\n
     agent,   broker,   processor,   weighman,   measurer, <\/p>\n
     surveyor, warehouseman or in any other capacity in <\/p>\n
     relation to the marketing of agricultural produce;\n<\/p>\n
     or   may,   after   recording   its   reasons   in   writing <\/p>\n
     therefor,   refuse   to   grant   or   renew   any   such <\/p>\n
     license.   Sub-section   (3)   of   Section   7   provides <\/p>\n
     that   any   trader   who   desires   to   operate   in   more <\/p>\n
     than one market area, may apply to such authority <\/p>\n
     or   officer   notified   by   the   State   Government   for <\/p>\n
     grant  or  renewal  of license  with  such details  as <\/p>\n
     may   be   prescribed.   Another   relevant   Section   to <\/p>\n
     analyze this controversy would be Section 8 of the <\/p>\n
     Act   of   1963,   which   authorizes     the   market <\/p>\n
     committee   for   reasons   to   be   recorded   in   writing, <\/p>\n
     to  suspend  or cancel   a  license.  The  five  grounds <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                     38<\/span><\/p>\n
     (a)   to   (e),   specified   in   sub-section   (1)   of <\/p>\n
     Section 8 do not provide that the person should be <\/p>\n
     residing   in   the   area   of   operation   of   the <\/p>\n
     Committee. We would assume that clause-(b) can be <\/p>\n
     invoked   if   the   license   holder   commits   breach   of <\/p>\n
     any   of   the   terms   or   conditions   of   license.   The <\/p>\n
     terms   and   conditions   of   license   can   be   discerned <\/p>\n
     from Form No.1 found in the Rules of 1967. Even on <\/p>\n
     fair   reading   of   every   clause   thereof,   it   is   not <\/p>\n
     possible   to   countenance   the   argument   that   the <\/p>\n
     license   holder   should   necessarily   be   a   resident <\/p>\n
     within the area of operation of the Committee. On <\/p>\n
     the   other   hand,   the   scheme   of   the   Chapter   II   of <\/p>\n
     the   Act   would     indicate   that     a   person   can   be <\/p>\n
     granted   license   who   is   thereafter   authorized   to <\/p>\n
     use any place in the market area for marketing of <\/p>\n
     agricultural   produce   or   for   operating   therein   in <\/p>\n
     the stated capacity. Significantly, Section 7 (3) <\/p>\n
     envisages  that  a person  can  operate  in  more than <\/p>\n
     one   market   area.   If   so,   it   is   unfathomable   that <\/p>\n
     such a person is  expected to be resident of such <\/p>\n
     multiple market areas. Suffice it to observe that <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    39<\/span><\/p>\n
     the scheme of Chapter II of the Act nor the Rules <\/p>\n
     of   the   model   license   conditions   mandate   that   the <\/p>\n
     trader   should   be   residing   in   the   market   area   as <\/p>\n
     such.\n<\/p>\n
     23. Insofar   as   the   challenge   on   the   ground   that <\/p>\n
     the  grant\/  renewal   of license  in  favour  of named <\/p>\n
     153 persons is in excess of authority because the <\/p>\n
     said   persons   were   not   doing   any   business   in   the <\/p>\n
     market   area   or   area   of   operation   of   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.5   Committee   during   the   relevant <\/p>\n
     period is concerned, the Petitioner has relied on <\/p>\n
     the document such as information disclosed to him <\/p>\n
     by   the   officials   which   would   indicate   that   about <\/p>\n
     139  members  have  not  paid any  market  fees  during <\/p>\n
     the relevant period at all and that only 8 members <\/p>\n
     have   shops   and   establishments   license   within   the <\/p>\n
     area   of   Basmat   Nagar   Municipal   Council,   which   is <\/p>\n
     indicative of the fact that such persons were not <\/p>\n
     carrying on business within the area of operation <\/p>\n
     of   the Respondent No.5 Committee. Insofar as the <\/p>\n
     information   disclosed   in   communication   dated   9th <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    40<\/span><\/p>\n
     January, 2009 by the information officer, that by <\/p>\n
     itself   cannot   be   the   basis   to   hold   that   only   8 <\/p>\n
     members   out   of   160   members,   were   legitimately <\/p>\n
     carrying   on   their   business   within   the   area   of <\/p>\n
     operation   of   the   Respondent   No.5   Committee.   The <\/p>\n
     communication   merely   records   that   out   of   160 <\/p>\n
     names,   only   8   have   shops   and   establishment <\/p>\n
     license.   It   also   records   that   in   all <\/p>\n
     probabilities,   the   other   persons   may   be   having <\/p>\n
     shops   outside   the   Basmat   Nagar   area   or   in   rural <\/p>\n
     area.   In   other   words,   this   communication   is   not <\/p>\n
     conclusive   of   the   fact   that   the   remaining   152 <\/p>\n
     persons   were   not   carrying   on   business   within   the <\/p>\n
     limits of “area of operation of the Respondent No.<\/p>\n
     5 Committee” as such.\n<\/p>\n
     24.   Insofar as the chart Exhibit G furnished to <\/p>\n
     the   Petitioner   by   the   Respondent   No.5   Committee, <\/p>\n
     it   does   reveal   that   only   2   members   have   paid <\/p>\n
     market fee for all the three financial years i.e. <\/p>\n
     between 2004-2005 to 2006-2007. Out of 153 members <\/p>\n
     at least 139 members have not paid any market fee <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   41<\/span><\/p>\n
     for   the   three   preceding   financial   years,   whereas <\/p>\n
     12   members   have   paid   market   fee   either   for   one <\/p>\n
     year   or   more   than   one   financial   year.   The   fact <\/p>\n
     that no market fee has been paid by the concerned <\/p>\n
     members, that would certainly be indicative of the <\/p>\n
     fact that the concerned trader was not carrying on <\/p>\n
     any   business   within   the   limits   of   area   of <\/p>\n
     operation of the Respondent No.5 Committee during <\/p>\n
     such period. Assuming that he was carrying on the <\/p>\n
     licensed business  he has failed to pay the market <\/p>\n
     fee. That may be in violation of the terms of the <\/p>\n
     license and a ground for cancellation of license.\n<\/p>\n
     To   counter   this   submission,   it   was   argued   that <\/p>\n
     there is nothing to indicate that the licensee has <\/p>\n
     to   continuously   carry   on   business   in   the   market <\/p>\n
     area and having failed to do so, would result in <\/p>\n
     cancellation or non renewal of his license.\n<\/p>\n
     25.  In our view, on conjoint reading of Section 6 <\/p>\n
     and 7 of the Act of 1963, it would appear that the <\/p>\n
     person   who   intends   to   carry   on   business   in   the <\/p>\n
     market   area   for   marketing   of   the   agricultural <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    42<\/span><\/p>\n
     produce   or   for   operating   therein   in   the   stated <\/p>\n
     capacity,   is   obliged   to   obtain   license   from   the <\/p>\n
     Committee   of   such   market   area.   Obviously,   the <\/p>\n
     license   is   granted   only   to   the   aspiring   persons <\/p>\n
     who   “actually   or   genuinely   intend”   to   carry   on <\/p>\n
     business  during  the  license  period   and not  as an <\/p>\n
     idle   formality   so   as   to   increase   the   number   of <\/p>\n
     traders   on   the   rolls   of   the   Committee.   The <\/p>\n
     language   of   definition   of   term   “trader”   as   also <\/p>\n
     Section 6 would suggest that the person should be <\/p>\n
     engaged  in the  activity  of  buying  and selling  of <\/p>\n
     agricultural   produce   within   the   market   area   in <\/p>\n
     praesenti.   The   fact   that   a   license   holder   is <\/p>\n
     expected to carry on business in the market area, <\/p>\n
     is   reinforced   from   condition   No.6   of   the   license <\/p>\n
     which     postulates   that   the   licensee   ‘shall   carry <\/p>\n
     on   business’   in   the   stated   capacity   only   and   at <\/p>\n
     such   places   for   which   the   license   is   issued   and <\/p>\n
     unless the licensee carries on any other business <\/p>\n
     under   a   license   granted   under   the   said   rules, <\/p>\n
     shall not carry on any other business of a market <\/p>\n
     functionary   in   the   market   area   or   in   any   market <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    43<\/span><\/p>\n
     therein.   A   priori,   if   the   license   holder <\/p>\n
     discontinues   his   business   or   fails   to   carry   on <\/p>\n
     business   in   the   market   area   during   the   relevant <\/p>\n
     period, the question of renewal of license of such <\/p>\n
     license holder does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
     26. Assuming that the license has been renewed, it <\/p>\n
     is  always  open  to the market   committee   to cancel <\/p>\n
     or   suspend   such   license   by   invoking   powers   under <\/p>\n
     Section   8   (1)   (b)   of   the   Act   of   1963   –   which <\/p>\n
     postulates   that   such   action   can   be   resorted   to <\/p>\n
     where the holder of license or any servant or any <\/p>\n
     one   acting   on   his   behalf   with   his   express   or <\/p>\n
     implied permission, commits a breach of any of the <\/p>\n
     terms  or  conditions  of the  license.  The  power  is <\/p>\n
     coupled  with  the duty,  inter-alia   to uphold   the <\/p>\n
     interest   of   genuine   traders   operating   in   the <\/p>\n
     market   area.   The   grant   or   “renewal   of   license”\n<\/p>\n
     therefor,   can   and   should   be   only   to   persons   who <\/p>\n
     are   genuinely   interested   in   carrying   on   business <\/p>\n
     in   the   market   area   for   marketing   of   the <\/p>\n
     agricultural   produce   or   for   operating   therein   in <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                     44<\/span><\/p>\n
     the stated capacity during the relevant period. If <\/p>\n
     that   activity   is   not   pursued   without   any <\/p>\n
     sufficient   cause,   merely   because   the   person   may <\/p>\n
     declare his  intention to undertake such activity, <\/p>\n
     cannot   be   the   basis   to   renew   the   license.   As <\/p>\n
     aforesaid,   in   the   present   case   admittedly     139 <\/p>\n
     members   have     not   paid   market   fee   during   the <\/p>\n
     preceding  three  financial  years  between  2004-2005 <\/p>\n
     to 2006-2007, which is indicative of the fact that <\/p>\n
     they   were   not   carrying   on   business   within   the <\/p>\n
     market area at all. Payment of license fee cannot <\/p>\n
     absolve the person from continuing to carry on the <\/p>\n
     business   in   the   market   area.   The   renewal   of <\/p>\n
     license  could  be only  in favour  of  those  license <\/p>\n
     holders who are actually and genuinely engaged in <\/p>\n
     carrying on business within the market area in the <\/p>\n
     stated   capacity.   The   fact   that   such   members   are <\/p>\n
     willing  to pay  license  fee  or renewal  fee,  would <\/p>\n
     not take the matter any further as the factum of <\/p>\n
     payment   of   license   fee   is   no   indication   of   the <\/p>\n
     fact   that   the   person   is   in   fact   carrying   on   the <\/p>\n
     business in the market area. A person who is not <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   45<\/span><\/p>\n
     actually   engaged   in   carrying   on   business   in   the <\/p>\n
     market area would obviously renew his license for <\/p>\n
     purposes   other   than   carrying   on   business   in   the <\/p>\n
     market area including to contest in the elections <\/p>\n
     of   the   Committee   so   as   to   become   part   of   the <\/p>\n
     Management   or   affairs   of   the   Committee.   Such <\/p>\n
     person will have no inkling about the difficulties <\/p>\n
     and problems faced by the traders community in the <\/p>\n
     market area. Therefore, renewal of license of such <\/p>\n
     person   would   be   antithesis   to   the   democratic <\/p>\n
     values and more so free and fair elections qua the <\/p>\n
     traders constituency.\n<\/p>\n
     27. Having   said   this,   we   would   accede   to   the <\/p>\n
     prayer of the Petitioner to direct the Respondent <\/p>\n
     Nos. 3 and 4 to hold enquiry into the validity of <\/p>\n
     licenses granted\/ renewed in favour of ineligible <\/p>\n
     persons   in   particular,   referred   to   in   Exhibit   G <\/p>\n
     who have not engaged themselves in carrying on the <\/p>\n
     business for marketing of the agricultural produce <\/p>\n
     in  the market  area  in the  stated  capacity  during <\/p>\n
     the   license   period   without   any   sufficient   cause.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   46<\/span><\/p>\n
     We   are   conscious   of   the   fact   that   after   the <\/p>\n
     enquiry,   it   is   possible   that   the   appropriate <\/p>\n
     authority   may   have   to   initiate   action   for <\/p>\n
     cancellation   of   license   already   granted   to   such <\/p>\n
     ineligible   persons   whose   number   may   be   quiet <\/p>\n
     substantial.   Even   so,   we   do   not   intend   to <\/p>\n
     interfere with the order passed by the Respondent <\/p>\n
     No.3   impugned   in   this   Petition   dated   20th <\/p>\n
     February,   2009   so   as   to   reopen   the   challenge <\/p>\n
     regarding   inclusion   of   names   of   such   ineligible <\/p>\n
     traders   in   the   final   voters   list.   This   is   so <\/p>\n
     because   as   we   have   already   noticed   that   the <\/p>\n
     challenge   in   respect   of   113   license   holders   has <\/p>\n
     been   duly   enquired   by   the   Assistant   Registrar <\/p>\n
     vide   order   dated   9th   May,   2008,   and   it   is <\/p>\n
     negatived   in   respect   of   at   least   100   license <\/p>\n
     holders,   which   order   has   become   final.   Moreover <\/p>\n
     the Petitioner raised objection regarding wrongful <\/p>\n
     inclusion of ineligible persons in the voters list <\/p>\n
     of only 10 licensed traders, which claim has been <\/p>\n
     negatived  by  the Respondent  No.3.  So  long as  the <\/p>\n
     license issued in favour of a trader was in force <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    47<\/span><\/p>\n
     and   he   has   paid   the   fees,   as   per   the   extant <\/p>\n
     Regulation,   his   name   would   continue   to   appear   in <\/p>\n
     the  voters  list.  It is  only upon  cancellation  of <\/p>\n
     his   licence,   the   question   of   excluding   his   name <\/p>\n
     from   the   voters   list   would   arise.   That   will   be <\/p>\n
     done   with   prospective   effect.   Admittedly,   the <\/p>\n
     election is being held on the basis of voters list <\/p>\n
     as on 31st December, 2007 and the cancellation of <\/p>\n
     license   would   be   prospective   –   to   be   done <\/p>\n
     hereinafter. That cannot be the basis to interdict <\/p>\n
     the present election process, which is already in <\/p>\n
     progress and has reached at the advanced stage of <\/p>\n
     polling   on   21st   February,   2010.   In   the <\/p>\n
     circumstances,   it   may   not   be   possible   to   grant <\/p>\n
     substantive relief in terms of prayer clauses (B) <\/p>\n
     and (F) as prayed by the Petitioner. Those prayers <\/p>\n
     will have to be negatived. The Petitioner however, <\/p>\n
     would   succeed   only   in   respect   of   prayer   clause <\/p>\n
     (A),   which   action   will   have   to   be   proceeded   by <\/p>\n
     following due process of law. This however, shall <\/p>\n
     not   preclude   the   Petitioner   to   pursue   his   remedy <\/p>\n
     of   raising   an   election   dispute   under   Rule   88   of <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    48<\/span><\/p>\n
     the Rules after conclusion of the elections, if so <\/p>\n
     advised.   All   questions   in   the   said   proceedings <\/p>\n
     will have to be decided on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
     28. For   the   view   we   have   taken,   it   may   not   be <\/p>\n
     necessary   to   burden   this   Judgment   with   the <\/p>\n
     reported decisions relied upon by the counsel for <\/p>\n
     the parties as the same do not have bearing on the <\/p>\n
     view that we have taken. To complete the record we <\/p>\n
     may   only   make   reference   to   those   decisions.   The <\/p>\n
     Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in <\/p>\n
     the   case   of  Bar   Council   of   Delhi   vs.   Union   of  <\/p>\n
     India,   A.I.R.<\/a>   1980   Supreme   Court,   1612   (Paras   8 <\/p>\n
     and 10), Ahmednagar Zillha  S.D.V.  & P. Sangh vs. <\/p>\n
     State   of   Maharashtra   and   others<\/a>,   2004   (1)   S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n
     Page   133   (Paras   3   to   6),   Pundlik   vs.   State   of  <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra, A.I.R.<\/a> 2005 Supreme Court, Page 3746  <\/p>\n
     (Paras   16   and   17),  and   the   decision   of   Division <\/p>\n
     Bench of this Court in Dattatraya Kachru Chine vs.  <\/p>\n
     State  of Maharashtra,<\/a>  2005 (4) Mh. L.J. Page 243 <\/p>\n
     (Para   23),   Bapu   Maruti   Rakshe   vs.   State   of <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                     49<\/span><\/p>\n
     Maharashtra, 2007 (3) Bom. C.R. Page 615 (Paras 8 <\/p>\n
     and 9)  and decision of Single Judge of this Court <\/p>\n
     in  Shivajirao   Prataprao   Chaulukya   vs.   State   of <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra,<\/a> 2009 (2) Bom. C.R. Page 580 (Paras 14  <\/p>\n
     and   18),  and   lastly  K.   Venkatachalam   vs.   A.\n<\/p>\n
     Swamickan  & Anr.,  1999 (4) S.C.C.  Page 526 (Para  <\/p>\n
     27).   The   counsel   for   the   Respondents   have <\/p>\n
     distinguished   these   decisions   and   instead   have <\/p>\n
     relied   on   the   Judgment   of   our   High   Court   in   the <\/p>\n
     case of  Digambar Sadashiv Ghorpade and others vs.  <\/p>\n
     Election Registration Officer, Kolhapur,<\/a> 2003 (1)  <\/p>\n
     Mah. L.J. Page 669 (Paras 13, 31) and Judgment in <\/p>\n
     Patan   Proper   Fal   ans   Shak   Bhaji   Kharid   Vechan  <\/p>\n
     Sahakari   Mandli   Ltd.,   Patan   vs.   Pali   Shak   Bhaji  <\/p>\n
     and Fal Ful Adi Ugarnarao-ni-Kharid Vechan Shakari  <\/p>\n
     Mandli Ltd., A.I.R. 1987 Gujrat, Page 33 (Paras 26  <\/p>\n
     to 28) and decision of the Apex Court in Shri Sant  <\/p>\n
     Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari  <\/p>\n
     Dugdha   Utpadak   Sanstha   and   another,   (2001)   8 <\/p>\n
     Supreme Court Cases, Page 509 (Paras 8 to 12).\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                     50<\/span><\/p>\n
     29. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere <\/p>\n
     with   the   ensuing   elections   which   would   culminate <\/p>\n
     with the polling and declaration of the result on <\/p>\n
     21st   February,   2010   and   22nd   February,   2010 <\/p>\n
     respectively,   particularly   on   account   of   our <\/p>\n
     finding that the election is held on the basis of <\/p>\n
     the voters list as on 31st December, 2007 and even <\/p>\n
     if   the   license   granted\/renewed   in   favour   of <\/p>\n
     ineligible   persons   were   to   be   cancelled,   that <\/p>\n
     decision would have prospective effect and cannot <\/p>\n
     have   any   bearing   on   the   final   voters   list   as   on <\/p>\n
     31st December, 2007. The enquiry to be undertaken <\/p>\n
     by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however, will have <\/p>\n
     to   abide   by   the   procedure   prescribed   for <\/p>\n
     cancellation   of   licenses.   Further,   if     the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.5 Committee is required to consider <\/p>\n
     request   for   renewal   of   license   of   any   trader <\/p>\n
     hereafter,   may   have   to   examine   such   application <\/p>\n
     keeping  in mind  as to whether  the said  incumbent <\/p>\n
     has in fact or not carrying on business within the <\/p>\n
     market   area   for   marketing   of   the   agricultural <\/p>\n
     produce   or   for   operating   therein   in   the   stated <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                   51<\/span><\/p>\n
     capacity   during   the   previous   financial   years <\/p>\n
     without any sufficient cause.\n<\/p>\n
     30.   Accordingly,   this   Petition   partly   succeeds.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule   is   made   absolute   only   in   terms   of   prayer <\/p>\n
     clause (A), which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
                “(A)   To   direct   the   Respondent  <\/p>\n
                Nos.3 and 4 to hold an inquiry  <\/p>\n
                as   to   the   validity   of   the  <\/p>\n
                licenses   issued   to   153   members  <\/p>\n
                whose names are included in the  <\/p>\n
                list   at   Exhibit   G   and   to <\/p>\n
                initiate   proceedings   so   as   to  <\/p>\n
                cancel   their   licenses   by <\/p>\n
                following due process of law by  <\/p>\n
                issuing writ of mandamus or any  <\/p>\n
                other   appropriate   writ,   order  <\/p>\n
                or directions,  as the case may  <\/p>\n
                be”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     31. Insofar as Civil Applications for intervention <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>
\n                                    52<\/span><\/p>\n
     are   concerned,   the   same   are   disposed   of   for   the <\/p>\n
     afore-stated   reasons.   Insofar   Civil   Application <\/p>\n
     filed by the petitioner for liberty to implead 153 <\/p>\n
     persons   as   party   Respondents   as   well   as   Civil <\/p>\n
     Application   for   interim   relief   against   those <\/p>\n
     persons,   both   these   Civil   Applications   are   also <\/p>\n
     disposed of in terms of this order.\n<\/p>\n
     32.   Interim order is vacated forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
     [S.S. SHINDE, J.]          [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
\n     asb\/FEB10\/wp4783.09               <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:38:25 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010 Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, S. S. Shinde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4783 OF 2009 Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar, Age-50 years, Occ: Business, R\/o-Mondha Road, Basmat Nagar, Dist-Hingoli …PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAshok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-26T04:59:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-26T04:59:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":7033,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-26T04:59:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-26T04:59:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-26T04:59:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010"},"wordCount":7033,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010","name":"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-26T04:59:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-bhumanna-chepurvar-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Bhumanna Chepurvar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12079","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}