- (1.) Leave granted. Heard both the sides.
(2.) The impugned order of supersession of A.P.M.C., Armori dated 3.9.1985 has been passed without consulting the Federation of Market Committees as enjoined by proviso to section 45 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1963. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the affidavit in reply to show that a request was made to the Federation in order to elicit its opinion in regard to the proposed supersession but that the Federation had not given reply one way or the other. The expression "Previously consulted" means that the opinion of the Federation one way or the other must be taken into account before reaching the conclusion whether or not to supersede. It is no good answer to say that the opinion of the Federation could not be taken into account because no opinion was expressed by it. In the eye of law supersession cannot be said to have been made in consultation with the Federation. A reply from the Federation one way or the other should have been insisted upon and the opinion expressed by the Federation 2 should have entered into the reckoning before the conclusion to supersede was reached. The order therefore is unsustainable in law. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
(3.) We may add that the allegations made against respondent No. 1, 3 Mr. Kulkarni in the petition for special leave were altogether unnecessary for the disposal of the present matter and learned Counsel for the petitioner has withdrawn these allegations accordingly. This order will not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action in accordance with law hereafter if considered necessary.;