{"id":129725,"date":"2010-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-08T14:26:31","modified_gmt":"2017-05-08T08:56:31","slug":"agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde, V. A. Naik<\/div>\n
                                             1\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n                       Writ Petition No. 139 of 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    1) Agriculture Produce Market\n       Committee, Ralegaon,\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n       District-Yavatmal.\n\n    2) Prashant s\/o Amrutrao Tayade,\n       Aged 32 years,\n       R\/o Pimpalkhuti, Post-Zadgaon,\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n       Tahsil-Ralegaon, District-Yavatmal.\n                              \n    3) Sudhir s\/o Ramdasji Javade,\n       Aged about 40 years,\n       R\/o Kinhi (Javade),\n                             \n       Tahsil-Ralegaon, District-Yavatmal.                 .. PETITIONERS\n\n                   .. Versus ..\n\n    1) The State of Maharashtra,\n      \n\n       through Secretary,\n       Department of Cooperation,\n   \n\n\n\n       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.\n\n    2) The District Deputy Registrar,\n       Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal.\n\n\n\n\n\n    3) Prafulla s\/o Khushalrao Mankar,\n       Aged-Adult, Occ. Agriculturist &\n       Director of A.P.M.C. Ralegaon,\n       R\/o Tah. and Dist. Yavatmal.                        .. RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n    Mr. Subhash Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioners,\n    Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mrs. B.H. Dangre,\n    Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2,\n    Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the intervenor.\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:39:46 :::\n                                    2\n\n                      CORAM:-S.A.BOBDE AND\n                              SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                      DATED :-02-03-2010.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.A. Bobde, J)<\/p>\n
    1.    Rule, returnable forthwith.    Heard by consent of the<\/p>\n
    learned Advocate for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.    The petitioners have challenged the order dated 6-1-2010<\/p>\n
    passed by the respondent No.1-the State of Maharashtra by<\/p>\n
    which the earlier order postponing the elections to the<\/p>\n
    Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ralegaon has been<\/p>\n
    cancelled and the elections are directed to be held.               The<\/p>\n
    petitioners have also challenged the consequential order dated<\/p>\n
    8-1-2010 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative<\/p>\n
    Societies,   Yavatmal   directing   the    appointment        of     an<\/p>\n
    Administrator on the A.P.M.C., Ralegaon.\n<\/p>\n
    3.    The petitioners are the Agriculture Produce Market<\/p>\n
    Committee, Ralegaon, District Yavatmal; the Vice-Chairman of<\/p>\n
    the said A.P.M.C.; and an agriculturist of village Kinhi.          The<\/p>\n
    A.P.M.C., Ralegaon was constituted for a period of five years.\n<\/p>\n
    The first meeting was held on 26.4.2004 and the term expired<\/p>\n
    on 25-6-2009. Thereafter the Government exercised powers<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
    under Section 14(3-A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce<\/p>\n
    Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 and postponed the elections<\/p>\n
    for a period of six months i.e. upto 25-12-2009. The term of the<\/p>\n
    Committee was not extended.\n<\/p>\n
    4.    Apparently, elections to as many as 25 Agricultural Seva<\/p>\n
    Sahakari Societies at the village level had not been held. The<\/p>\n
    matter was brought to this Court and this Court by an order<\/p>\n
    dated 24-11-2009 held that the elections to the Agricultural<\/p>\n
    Seva Sahakari Societies should be held before the elections to<\/p>\n
    the A.P.M.C. are declared.\n<\/p>\n
    5.    On 23-12-2009 the respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    issued an order in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    postponing the elections from 26-12-2009 by a period of six<\/p>\n
    months on the following ground; that the Director of Marketing<\/p>\n
    has formed an opinion to that effect, that this Court has passed<\/p>\n
    an order directing that the elections to the Seva Sahakari<\/p>\n
    Societies should be held first and that season of cotton and<\/p>\n
    soyabean have commenced the said crops are coming into<\/p>\n
    market in large quantities and it would not be proper to<\/p>\n
    interrupt the sale and purchase due to the elections. This order<\/p>\n
    was   issued   under   Section   14(3-A)   of    the     Maharashtra<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963.\n<\/p>\n
    6.    Thereafter much before the end of the period for which<\/p>\n
    the elections are postponed the State suddenly decided to<\/p>\n
    cancel the earlier order postponing the elections. This was done<\/p>\n
    by the impugned order dated 6-1-2010.                This order is<\/p>\n
    significantly not issued by or in the name of the Governor of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra, but is issued by the Joint Secretary, State of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra simply stating that the postponement of elections<\/p>\n
    made by the earlier order dated      23-12-2009 is cancelled. The<\/p>\n
    order further directs the District Deputy Registrar of Co-\n<\/p>\n
    operative Societies to supercede the Board of Directors of the<\/p>\n
    A.P.M.C. and appoint an Administrator.       In pursuance of this<\/p>\n
    order, the District Deputy Registrar has issued the other<\/p>\n
    impugned communication dated 8-1-2010 referring to the<\/p>\n
    impugned order of the State Government dated 6-1-2010 and<\/p>\n
    directing that the offices of the Directors of the petitioner-\n<\/p>\n
    A.P.M.C. shall be vacated and directing the appointment of an<\/p>\n
    Administrator till   the first meeting of a newly elected<\/p>\n
    committee under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Agricultural<\/p>\n
    Produce Marketing     (Regulation)    Act,   1963.       Both these<\/p>\n
    communications are challenged in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
    7.    Mr. Paliwal, the learned Advocate for the petitioners<\/p>\n
    primarily submitted that the impugned order dated 6-1-2010<\/p>\n
    passed by the respondent No.1 under the signature of the Joint<\/p>\n
    Secretary is illegal not having been issued by an order in the<\/p>\n
    name of the Governor of Maharashtra as required by Article<\/p>\n
    166 of the Constitution of India, even though the earlier order<\/p>\n
    postponing the elections was so issued and authenticated<\/p>\n
    under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. According to the<\/p>\n
    learned Advocate, the respondent No.1, having postponed the<\/p>\n
    elections to the A.P.M.C., Ralegaon by order or in the name of<\/p>\n
    the Governor of Maharashtra, was bound in law to withdraw the<\/p>\n
    same if it wished to do so in a like manner i.e. by order or in the<\/p>\n
    name of the Governor of Maharashtra. Not having done so, the<\/p>\n
    impugned order withdrawing the earlier order by which<\/p>\n
    elections are postponed is contrary to Section 21 of the General<\/p>\n
    Clauses Act, 1897, which reads follows :-\n<\/p>\n
          “21. Power to issue, to include power to add
\n          to   amend,      vary   or    rescind      notifications,
\n          orders, rules or bye-laws – Where, by any
\n          Central Act or Regulations, a power to issue<\/p>\n
          notifications,   orders,     rules,   or    bye-laws         is
\n          conferred, then that power includes a power,
\n          exercisable in the like manner and subject to the
\n          like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to,
\n          amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders,<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
          rules or bye-laws so issued”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.    The   learned   Advocate       General   for   the     State      of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra submitted that the order withdrawing the earlier<\/p>\n
    order must be taken to be in compliance with Section 21 of the<\/p>\n
    General Clauses Act, 1897, even though it is not issued by<\/p>\n
    order or in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra; since it<\/p>\n
    has been substantially issued in like manner as required by<\/p>\n
    Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 by following the<\/p>\n
    same procedure that was followed in issuing the earlier order.\n<\/p>\n
    9.    The learned Advocate General primarily relied on a<\/p>\n
    decision of R. Chitralekha vs. State of Mysore and others<\/a>,<\/p>\n
    1964 SC 1823 for the proposition that though the order in<\/p>\n
    question there was defective in form it was open to the State<\/p>\n
    Government to prove by other means that such an order had<\/p>\n
    been validly made and that the provisions of Article 166 of the<\/p>\n
    Constitution of India are only directory and not mandatory in<\/p>\n
    character and, if they are not complied with, it can be<\/p>\n
    established as a question of fact that the impugned order was<\/p>\n
    issued in fact by the State Government or the Governor.\n<\/p>\n
          Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted if it<\/p>\n
    can be established that the subsequent order withdrawing<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
    the earlier order was issued by substantially following the<\/p>\n
    procedure followed earlier, the subsequent order would be<\/p>\n
    sustainable.   It was further submitted that the earlier order<\/p>\n
    postponing the elections in this case was issued by the State<\/p>\n
    Government by order and in the name of the Governor after<\/p>\n
    considering the letter of the Director of Marketing and after<\/p>\n
    referring to various circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
    10.   This decision was expressed by an order made in the<\/p>\n
    name of the Governor of Maharashtra.          According to the<\/p>\n
    learned Advocate General, since the subsequent order dated<\/p>\n
    6-1-2010 has also been issued by the State Government though<\/p>\n
    with reference to a letter of the District Deputy Registrar dated<\/p>\n
    22-12-2009, the subsequent order must be taken to have been<\/p>\n
    issued in like manner, particularly since there is no statute<\/p>\n
    which regulates the procedure for issuing such order.              The<\/p>\n
    submission in short is that since both orders are based on some<\/p>\n
    report of an officer and are based on decisions taken by the<\/p>\n
    State Government the subsequent order must be taken to have<\/p>\n
    been issued in like manner.\n<\/p>\n
    11.   Since the main contention of the respondent-State is that<\/p>\n
    on the basis of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
    cited (Supra) that it is permissible for the State to establish as a<\/p>\n
    question of fact that the impugned order was issued in fact by<\/p>\n
    the State Government or the Governor, it is necessary to<\/p>\n
    examine whether the procedure adopted by the State while<\/p>\n
    issuing the earlier order was complied with while withdrawing<\/p>\n
    the order subsequently, particularly since there is no statute<\/p>\n
    which regulates the procedure. At the outset, is may be<\/p>\n
    observed that it is not sufficient for the State Government to<\/p>\n
    point out that the subsequent order was also issued by the<\/p>\n
    State Government and therefore, Section 21 is complied with.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 requires the<\/p>\n
    subsequent order to be issued in like manner. The term in “like<\/p>\n
    manner” clearly connotes a similarity in the manner in which<\/p>\n
    the order is issued, not merely a formal similarity in the<\/p>\n
    statement that it is issued in the name of the Governor.\n<\/p>\n
    12.   Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses, 1897<\/p>\n
    imposes an important administrative safe-guard. In fact, it<\/p>\n
    ensures that an order made in the name of Governor of the<\/p>\n
    State after having gone through and vetted by high Officers<\/p>\n
    does not suffer a withdrawal or a negation through some other<\/p>\n
    channel, by-passing those officers who were instrumental                in<\/p>\n
    the issuance of the initial order and thereby by-passing<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
    the reasons for issuing the first order. It may not be possible to<\/p>\n
    insist that every officer in the chain be the same when the<\/p>\n
    subsequent order is issued, but at least the officers who gave<\/p>\n
    the main inputs to the Government and on the basis of whose<\/p>\n
    opinion the first order was issued must be the same.               It is,<\/p>\n
    therefore, necessary to see whether the sound principle of<\/p>\n
    administration enacted by Section 21 of the General Clauses<\/p>\n
    Act, 1897 has been followed in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
    13.<\/p>\n
          On a plain reading of two orders i.e. earlier order<\/p>\n
    postponing the election and subsequent order withdrawing the<\/p>\n
    earlier order, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has<\/p>\n
    not been complied with.      The earlier order postponing the<\/p>\n
    election was passed on the specific recommendations of the<\/p>\n
    Director of Marketing, who is the Head of Department under the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act,<\/p>\n
    1963 and is also the Commissioner of Co-operation under the<\/p>\n
    Co-operative Societies Act. That Officer had cited the following<\/p>\n
    reasons for postponing the elections namely; that the elections<\/p>\n
    of the Seva Sahakari Societies, which forms the collegium<\/p>\n
    which elect Directors to the A.P.M.C., had not been held and<\/p>\n
    that this Court had ordered that those elections be held before<\/p>\n
    the A.P.M.C. elections.    The Director had also stated that<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
    purchase and sale of cotton and soyabean had started and<\/p>\n
    elections would disrupt the purchase and sale of those<\/p>\n
    commodities. The purchase and sale of these commodities are<\/p>\n
    vital to the needs of the community. It is on the basis of the<\/p>\n
    report of the Director of Marketing that the Government came<\/p>\n
    to the decision that the elections to the Marketing Committee<\/p>\n
    should be postponed. Now while withdrawing this decision, it<\/p>\n
    appears that the channel from which the original inputs were<\/p>\n
    obtained by the Government for taking the decision, is<\/p>\n
    completely ignored.    The subsequent order merely makes a<\/p>\n
    reference to the impugned earlier order dated 23-12-2009<\/p>\n
    postponing the elections and then in a cursory and terse<\/p>\n
    manner states that the earlier order postponing the elections of<\/p>\n
    the A.P.M.C., Ralegaon is hereby cancelled.           There is no<\/p>\n
    reference whatsoever to the opinion of the Director of<\/p>\n
    Marketing which was taken in the first instance for postponing<\/p>\n
    the elections, but there is a reference to some letter written by<\/p>\n
    a District Deputy Registrar of Yavatmal without even referring<\/p>\n
    to its contents. The substance of the procedure followed earlier<\/p>\n
    has not been followed; the form in which the earlier order was<\/p>\n
    expressed has not been followed. As stated earlier, the<\/p>\n
    subsequent order has not been issued by order and in the<\/p>\n
    name of Governor. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
    term in ‘like manner’ which refers to both form and substance<\/p>\n
    has not been complied with while issuing the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
    14.   Smt. Dangre, the learned Additional Government Pleader<\/p>\n
    for the respondent who supplemented the submission on behalf<\/p>\n
    of learned Advocate General relied on the judgment of the<\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Bali Rajbhar vs. The State of<\/p>\n
    West Bengal and others<\/a>, (1975) 4 SCC 47. In that case,<\/p>\n
    their Lordships held that an order by the State Government to<\/p>\n
    revoke or modify a detention order would be sustainable if it<\/p>\n
    was done in a similar and not identical manner and there was<\/p>\n
    nothing illegal if the State Government referred a second<\/p>\n
    representation to the Advisory Board under Section 14 of the<\/p>\n
    Maintenance of Internal Security Act in conditions analogous to<\/p>\n
    those in which the reference could be made under Section 10 of<\/p>\n
    the Act.    Their Lordship observed “in other words, the<\/p>\n
    subsequent reference would result from a necessarily implied<\/p>\n
    power of the Government, to act, so far as possible, in a like<\/p>\n
    manner to the one it has to adopt in confirming or revoking the<\/p>\n
    initial detention order under Section 12 of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
          The facts of that case as well as scheme of the law under<\/p>\n
    which it was decided are not similar to the present case. Even<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
    otherwise   we    have   come    to    the    conclusion      that     the<\/p>\n
    Government has not acted as far as possible in a like manner<\/p>\n
    adopted while making the first order. The respondents have<\/p>\n
    not   demonstrated   that   it   was    not    possible      to    follow<\/p>\n
    substantially the same procedure that was followed when<\/p>\n
    making the initial order, and who asked the Government to<\/p>\n
    cancel the earlier order.   Strangely the letter of the District<\/p>\n
    Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 22-12-2009<\/p>\n
    referred to in the subsequent order is not even addressed to<\/p>\n
    the Government but is a letter written by the District Deputy<\/p>\n
    Registrar to the Director of Marketing stating that it might be<\/p>\n
    appropriate to appoint an Administrator for the petitioner-APMC<\/p>\n
    and soliciting the opinion of the Director of Marketing.\n<\/p>\n
    Significantly, for reasons best known to it, the Government did<\/p>\n
    not wait for the opinion of the Director of Marketing and acted<\/p>\n
    on the letter written by the District Deputy Registrar to the<\/p>\n
    Director of Marketing, though only a copy of the letter was<\/p>\n
    endorsed to it.\n<\/p>\n
    15.   It was contended by Shri Ghare, the learned Advocate for<\/p>\n
    the intervenor that the impugned order to supercede the<\/p>\n
    petitioner-APMC has been passed under Section 15-A of the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act,<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
    1963.     According to the learned Advocate, the term of the<\/p>\n
    Committee of the A.P.M.C. was not extended at any point of<\/p>\n
    time under Section 14(3) of the Maharashtra Agricultural<\/p>\n
    Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. Since the term of the<\/p>\n
    Committee had admittedly expired on 25-12-2009, the power<\/p>\n
    to supercede this Committee and appoint an Administrator<\/p>\n
    could have been exercised independently of the issue of<\/p>\n
    postponing of the elections. Therefore, merely because the<\/p>\n
    order withdrawing the postponement of election is liable to be<\/p>\n
    set aside, the order appointing an Administrator does not<\/p>\n
    become vulnerable.\n<\/p>\n
    16.     We see no merit in this argument since the question is<\/p>\n
    not whether the power to appoint an Administrator can be<\/p>\n
    exercised independently of the order to postpone the elections<\/p>\n
    or cancel such postponement, the question is whether in fact<\/p>\n
    this power has been exercised independently. We find that the<\/p>\n
    impugned order withdrawing the order postponing the elections<\/p>\n
    itself gives a direction to the District Deputy Registrar to take<\/p>\n
    action for appointing an Administrator since the Government<\/p>\n
    has decided to withdraw the order postponing the elections. In<\/p>\n
    quiet obedience, the District Deputy Registrar has referred to<\/p>\n
    the order directing him to appoint an Administrator and<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:39:47 :::<\/span>
\n                                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
    complied with it.      We thus find that the District Deputy<\/p>\n
    Registrar has acted under dictation in regard to powers which<\/p>\n
    he is supposed to exercise independently. We are thus of the<\/p>\n
    opinion that the impugned order directing an Administrator is<\/p>\n
    vitiated and liable to be set aside on this ground also, vide<\/p>\n
    Purtabpur Co. vs. Cane Commissioner, AIR 1970 SC 1896.\n<\/p>\n
    17.     We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated<\/p>\n
    6-1-2010 passed by the respondent No.1 and subsequent<\/p>\n
    impugned order dated 8-1-2010 passed by the respondent<\/p>\n
    No.2.     We make it clear that the authorities are free to take<\/p>\n
    such actions, as may be advised in accordance with law, in<\/p>\n
    regard to holding of elections. Petition allowed with costs. Rule<\/p>\n
    made absolute in above terms.\n<\/p>\n
            Steno copy of this order be furnished to the parties, as<\/p>\n
    per rules.\n<\/p>\n
                  JUDGE                        JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n\n    adgokar\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:39:47 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2010 Bench: S.A. Bobde, V. A. Naik 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 139 of 2010 1) Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ralegaon, District-Yavatmal. 2) Prashant s\/o Amrutrao Tayade, Aged 32 years, R\/o […]<\/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-129725","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAgriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 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\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-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=\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-08T08:56:31+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T08:56:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2689,\"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\\\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T08:56:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 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":"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 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\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-08T08:56:31+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T08:56:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010"},"wordCount":2689,"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\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010","name":"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T08:56:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-produce-market-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Agriculture Produce Market vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 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\/129725","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=129725"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129725\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}