1 02A-2923.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2923 OF 2025 ( HARISH EKNATHRAO MORE AND OTHERS VS STATE OF MAHA., THR. SECRETARY, COOPERATION, MARKETING AND TEXTILE DEPT., MUMBAI AND ORS ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate a/b. Shri Ninad S. Lande, Advocate for petitioners. Shri Milind Sathe, Advocate General a/b. Shri N.S.Rao, AGP for respondent/State. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for intervenor/respondent Nos. 4 to 6 CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2026 1) The petitioners are the elected Members/Directors of respondent No.3 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Amravati (Market Comittee). By way of this petition, the petitioners are challenging show-cause notice dated 21/04/2025 as to why action against them be not taken under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (Act of 1963). 2) The aforementioned show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners being Directors of the respondent No.3 Committee. In the show-cause notice, the allegations against the petitioners and the report received in respect of such allegations is referred to. The allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice are serious. KOLHE 2026:BHC-NAG:13901-DB 2 02A-2923.2025.odt 3) Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed reply to the show-cause notice issued under Section 45(1) of the Act of 1963 and there is no final decision is taken in view of the prohibiting order passed by this Court dated 12/06/2025 and clarified the same vide order dated 18/06/2025. 4) Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate argued that though all the charges are prima facie proved in enquiry against the Market Committee, no notice was served upon the Market Committee, whereas show-cause notices have been served upon the petitioners/Directors of the Market Committee. According to him, the said notice ought to have served upon the Market Committee, in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1963. 5) Learned Senior Advocate also drawn our attention to certain observations recorded in the show-cause notice. Such observations, according to him, indicate that the Market Committee is guilty of the alleged irregularities and illegalities. According to him, the notice ought to have given to the Committee and in absence of such notice, show-cause notice is bad-in-law. 6) On the other hand learned Advocate General appearing for respondent-State pointed out the provision Section 2(j) of the Act of 1963 defining Marketing Committee and submits that the Market Committee comprises the Directors. He submits that therefore notices were issued to the Directors finding them prima facie guilty. 7) It is further argued that it is not the case of the petitioners that the authority who issued show-cause notice, has no jurisdiction. It is submitted that show-cause notice was issued KOLHE 3 02A-2923.2025.odt on subjective satisfaction based on the material and to examine sufficiency of the same cannot be the Court’s jurisdiction. He therefore, submits that the petition is premature and unless the petitioners submit their replies, and any final decision is taken after considering the reply, this petition may not be entertained. 8) Mr. Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has reiterated the arguments of learned Advocate General and has drawn our attention to the serious allegations against the petitioners in the show-cause notice and the enquiry report. 9) Having considered the rival contentions, and on findings that the challenge raised in the present petition is to the show-cause notice to which the petitioners have not yet submitted their replies, we are of the opinion that the preset petition, at this stage, is premature. 10) Further more, Section 2(j) defines Market Committee or Committee which means a Committee constituted for a market area under Section 11. Section 11 is in respect of establishment of Market Committee and Section 13 is for Constitution of Market Committees. 11) If we appreciate Section 2(j) couple with Sections 11 and 13 and further considering the allegations made in the show-cause notice, it is evident that the action sought is against all the Directors and therefore, we are of the opinion that no illegality is committed by the respondent District Deputy Registrar while issuing show-cause notice to all the Directors of the Market Committee. 12) Section 12, which relates to incorporation of Market Committees which says that every Market Committee shall be a body corporate by the name of “the Agricultural Produce Market KOLHE 4 02A-2923.2025.odt Committee” and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and may in its corporate name sue and be sued, and shall be competent to contract, acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, and to do all other things necessary for the purposes for which it is established. 13) However, in view of the observations made herein above, we are of the opinion that the show-cause notice would not vitiate for not giving the notice to the Market Committee, for the reason that in the show-cause notice it is specifically stated that all the Directors are responsible for the alleged illegalities and irregularities. 14) Hence, no case is made out by the petitioners for interference. 15) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners, if any adverse order is passed against them on the basis of impugned show-cause notice, they may avail the remedy as available under the law. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) ( ANIL S. KILOR, J. ) KOLHE Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 15/10/2026 19:14:05