Bombay High Court
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE SHRIGONDAversusDIRECTOR OF MARKETING MAHARASHTRA STATE PUNE AN ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The Director’s power to direct a re‑audit under sub‑rule (7) of Rule 116 of the APMC Rules, 1967 is valid and does not require a prior hearing; the order stands.
Summary
The Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) of Shrignoda challenged an order dated 23 March 2026 by the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra, directing a re‑audit of its accounts for FY 2023‑24 and 2024‑25 under sub‑rule (7) of Rule 116 of the APMC Rules, 1967. The petitioners argued that the order was issued without a hearing, was influenced by political pressure from an MLA, and therefore violated principles of natural justice and Article 227 of the Constitution. The Director’s power to order a re‑audit was defended on the ground that it is an administrative function aimed at preventing loss or misappropriation and is not subject to a hearing requirement. The Court held that the Director’s statutory power is unfettered, the order does not constitute a quasi‑judicial act, and no hearing is mandated before exercising it. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that any substantive grievances could be raised before the appropriate authority at a later stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra, can direct a re‑audit of an APMC’s accounts without granting a prior hearing under sub‑rule (7) of Rule 116 of the APMC Rules, 1967.
- Whether the order directing re‑audit is vitiated by alleged political influence and thus violative of Article 227 of the Constitution.
- Whether the writ petition challenging the re‑audit order is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election) Rules, 2017 — s. Rule 10(3)
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules, 1967 — s. Rule 116 (sub‑rule 7)
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963
Subjects
- re‑audit
- APMC
- administrative law
- Article 227
- procedural fairness
- director’s powers
- agricultural marketing
- political influence
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:18854
(1) WP-4194-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4194 OF 2026
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
SHRIGONDA, TQ. SHRIGONDA DIST. AHILYANAGAR AND
ANOTHER
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF MARKETING, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PUNE
AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh h/f Mr. Umesh B. Gite, Advocate for
Petitioners
Mr. S. K. Shirse, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 28th APRIL, 2026.
ORDER:-
1. The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated
23.03.2026 passed by respondent no.1/Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune, thereby directing re-audit of accounts of
petitioner no.1/APMC for financial year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025
under provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 116 of Maharashtra
Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1963 and Rules of 1967 (for short ‘APMC Rules, 1967’).
2. The petitioner no.1 is Marketing Committee through its In-
charge Secretary Rajendra Bajirao Lagad and petitioner no.2 is
Chairman of petitioner/Market Committee. One of Director
namely Sajan Pachpute had made an application under Rule 10(3)
of APMC (Election) Rules, 2017 before respondent no.2 seeking
disqualification of petitioner no.2 as Director of APMC. The
(2) WP-4194-2026.odt
respondent no.2 was pleased to pass order of disqualification. Now
subject matter is pending before this Court in Writ Petition
No.13646/2025.
3. According to Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, learned Advocate
appearing for petitioners, although disqualification order passed
against petitioner no.2 is stayed by this Court, respondent no.3
initiated another proceeding before respondent no.1/Director of
Marketing for change of Special Auditor and re-audit of petitioner
no.1 on very same issues, which were subject matter of
disqualification proceeding against petitioner no.2. The respondent
no.1/Director of Marketing served notice of hearing to petitioners
on application filed by respondent no.3 seeking re-audit of
petitioner no.1. However, without giving sufficient opportunity of
hearing to petitioners, impugned order directing re-audit of
petitioner/APMC for the year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 has been
passed. Mr. Deshmukh would invite attention of this Court to
communications issued by MLA, which according to him depicts
political intentions behind passing impugned order.
4. Per Contra, Mr. Dhorde, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent no.3, supports impugned order.
5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that
(3) WP-4194-2026.odt
impugned order has been passed by respondent no.1/Director of
Marketing in exercise of powers under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 116 of
APMC Rules, 1967. Undisputedly, Director is vested with
sufficient power to direct re-audit, if he is satisfied that it is
necessary or expedient. Rule 116 of APMC Rules, 1967 provides
that every Market Committee shall maintain account books and
same shall be audited annually by Auditors of Co-operative
Department. The Auditor is under obligation to report to
Committee and Director or officer authorized by him, any material
defect or irregularity observed by him in accounts of Committee.
The powers of the Director to direct re-audit are not circumscribed
by any express restriction. It depends on his subjective satisfaction
as to requirement of such exercise.
6. Prima facie, this court finds that Director has administrative
control over functioning of APMC and Sub-rule (7) of Rule 116 of
APMC Rules, 1967 is aimed to supervise over accounts and
expenditures of committee with a view to avoid loss, waste or
misappropriation of money or property owned by or vested in
Committee. This court does not find provision requiring grant of
opportunity of hearing to Market Committee before exercise of
powers conferred under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 116 of APMC Rules,
1967. Such powers are purely administrative in nature. Neither
Director exercises quasi judicial power nor does he adjudicate any
(4) WP-4194-2026.odt
issue while passing order of re-audit. The re-audit does not cause
direct prejudice to APMC. This Court do not find any reason to
entertain writ petition against such order under Article 227 of
Constitution of India.
7. In present case, it is contention of petitioners that respondent
no.1 has exercised powers on extraneous or political influence
because only one MLA demanded re-audit. However, this Court
cannot countenance with such contention. The reliance of
petitioners on observations of Supreme Court in case of State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Sanjay Nagayach and
Others1 appears to be misplaced. In facts of this case, this Court
do not find any reason to interfere in impugned order. Needless to
state here that, all points on merit are kept open for agitation
before appropriate authority at appropriate stage.
8. In result, Writ Petition stands rejected.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/April-2026
1
Checking your session…