The Bombay High Court set aside the appointment of an Administrator at the Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Navi Mumbai, and directed that charge be handed back to the elected body until fresh elections are conducted.
A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sandesh D. Patil allowed the writ petition filed by members of the outgoing committee (“Petitioners”), who had challenged the appointment of an Administrator despite their proposal for extension being pending before the State.
The petitioners pointed out that their committee, elected in August 2020, had completed its five-year tenure on August 31 2025. But before that, as required under the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act, 1963 (“APMC Act”), they had deposited election funds and submitted a proposal for extension on August 7, 2025 to allow time for elections. However, on August 29, 2025, the Director of Marketing, Mr. Vikas Rasal, issued an order appointing himself as Administrator and assumed charge on September 1, 2025, effectively dislodging the elected body overnight.
The petitioners relied on Babasaheb Apparao Akat v. State of Maharashtra[1] where this Court had held that pending extension proposals must be considered before superseding an elected body with an Administrator.
The respondent argued that Section 15A of the APMC Act empowers the appointment of an Administrator once a committee’s tenure expires. It contended that no right to extension exists and that the decision lay within governmental discretion.
However, the Court observed that Section 15A of the APMC Act allows appointment of Administrators, and such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily when an extension proposal is pending and all steps for elections have been taken. The Court further observed that the Director’s action in appointing himself as Administrator “in tearing hurry” was mala fide, particularly since the committee had neither defaulted nor committed irregularities. The judges noted that the law permits either extension of the committee’s term or appointment of the outgoing members themselves as a Board of Administrators, rather than replacing them outright.
Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition while directing Administrator to immediately hand over charge to the erstwhile elected committee. Respondents were further directed to conduct elections for the Mumbai APMC without delay. The Committee was also directed not to take any policy decisions until a new body is elected.
After the order was pronounced, State requested to stay the order which was explicitly rejected by the court.
Appearances
Petitioners- Mr.Nitin Gaware Patil with Mr.Divyesh Jain
Respondents- Mr.B.V. Samant, Addl.GP with Mr.Ketan Joshi ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the State. Mr.Umeshchandra Yadav for Respondent No.4.
[1] 2010 SCC OnLine Bombay 175
