The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed a writ petition, quashing both the order disqualifying the petitioner as Chairman and member of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Udgir, as well as the appellate order upholding that disqualification. The Court remanded the matter to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh adjudication, ensuring that the petitioner has a fair opportunity to respond to all allegations.
The petitioner served as APMC Chairman and was elected from the agriculturists’ constituency. Complainants alleged that his primary income was not from agriculture and that he held interests in trading firms such as Sachin Proteins Ltd. While income tax records indicated diverse income sources, the petitioner submitted a CA certificate showing predominantly agricultural income. The authorities relied on documents presented during hearings rather than initial pleadings, and denied the petitioner a specific opportunity to address new allegations.
The District Deputy Registrar by order dated 6 September 2024 and the Divisional Joint Registrar by appellate order dated 31 July 2025 held that the petitioner was disqualified to be a member and Chairperson under Rule 10(2)(ii) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee Election to Committee Rules, 2017, for allegedly earning his main income from non-agricultural sources and being associated with trading firms.
This led to filing of the instant writ petition. The key claim was lack of notice and opportunity to rebut allegations of interest in Sachin Proteins Ltd., which were raised for the first time during argument, and not in the original complaint.
The petitioner contended that only the Director could decide disqualification, and that audit records and income sources must be evaluated strictly per statute. He relied on Supreme Court precedents insisting decisions be based solely on pleaded grounds, citing the penal and far-reaching consequences of disqualification.
The Bench comprising Justice Arun R. Pednekar held that powers were duly delegated by government notification, allowing the District Deputy Registrar to adjudicate questions of disqualification. However, the Court found violations of natural justice, as the petitioner was neither warned of nor given the chance to answer the allegation of association with Sachin Proteins Ltd., nor were his agricultural income details fully considered.
The Court further observed that findings and decisions affecting the rights of elected representatives must be based strictly on pleadings and robust evidence.
In result, the Bombay High Court set aside both the original and appellate disqualification orders and remanded the matter to the District Deputy Registrar for a fresh, detailed inquiry. The authorities were directed to give the petitioner full notice of all grounds, including his alleged business interests and income sources, and to consider all audit records and evidence supplied. Both parties were directed to attend before the District Deputy Registrar on 6 October 2025 to schedule further hearings.
Appearances:
Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, Advocate h/f. Mr. U.L. Momale, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3–State.
Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for respondent no.4.
Mr. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent nos. 9 to 11.
Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for respondent nos.5 to 7.
