Bombay HC Nagpur bench dismisses Amravati APMC directors' plea against show-cause notice

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has dealt a setback to the elected directors of the Amravati Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). The directors had challenged a show-cause notice sent to them, but the court dismissed their petition. Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Rajnish Vyas delivered the verdict after hearing detailed arguments from both sides.

The matter concerns a notice dated April 21, 2025, issued by the Nagpur district deputy registrar under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The notice alleged serious irregularities against the directors. A writ petition against it was filed in the High Court by Harish More and others.

The High Court had earlier, through orders of June 12, 2025 and June 18, 2025, barred the taking of a final decision. With the petition now dismissed, the directors will have to reply to the notice.

In its order, the court said plainly that the petition against a show-cause notice was premature, since the petitioners had not yet submitted a reply to the notice. Advocate Mahesh Dhatrak, appearing for the respondents, also opposed the petition, citing the serious allegations.

During the hearing, senior advocate M. G. Bhangde, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the allegations in the inquiry report were against the market committee, but that the committee was not served the notice as a body corporate under Section 12 of the Act. He said the notice was sent only to the directors individually, whereas under the rules it should have been given to the market committee itself.

In reply, Advocate General Milind Sathe and Assistant Government Pleader N. S. Rao, appearing for the state government, said that under Section 2(j) of the 1963 Act the market committee includes its directors. They said all the directors had been found prima facie guilty in the inquiry, and so notices were issued to all of them.

After hearing both sides, the court said the action under Sections 2(j), 11 and 13 was against all the directors. The district deputy registrar's issuing of notices to all the directors was therefore not illegal. According to the court, not serving the market committee separately does not invalidate the show-cause notice, because all the directors have been held liable for the alleged illegalities.

While dismissing the petition, the court also allowed the petitioners to avail themselves of the legal remedies available under law if any adverse order is passed against them on the basis of the show-cause notice.