The partnership firm was registered only in the year 2014 and the firm was neither in existence number carried on any business prior to cut off date.
F 158 to the appellant M s Hande Wavare Co. has led to the series of litigations.
Aggrieved, the appellant M s. Hande Wavare and Co. has filed appeal before the Supreme Court.
As pointed out earlier, G.V. Lohot started business by taking licence in his name for the year 1991 92 and paid the money only in his individual capacity.
By the order dated 24.09.2002, Director of Agricultural Marketing allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2 and directed APMC to allot large gala to him by pointing out that in fourteen other cases, booking of galas made by one person were transferred to other persons.
F 158 in the Mumbai Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Vashi and further directing the Mumbai Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee to hand over the said gala to respondent No.2 Habibullah Farhatullah.
Several claimants made claims for the allotment of the said large gala shop.
F 158 which was allotted in favour of Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade as he was found number eligible for the large gala having made short payment of cess and APMC was directed to allot only a small gala to Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade.
By referring to the report of the Joint Director of Marketing and observing that APMC in fourteen cases has allowed the transfer of the booking of the galas in the name of others and allotted the galas to such transferees, in Appeal No.34/2002, Director of Agricultural Marketing observed as under From the report of Shri Kokare, it is clear that in 14 cases which are on record the booking was done in the names of some other persons and the Respondent has allowed the transfer of the bookings of the galas in the name of others and further allotted the galas to such transferees.
Aggrieved by the cancellation of allotment, appellant Kashinath Wavare filed a Revision Application No.28 of 2014 under Section 43 of MAPMC Act before the State Government.
The first respondent a partnership firm by name M s Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre approached the High Court in a Civil Application No.13 of 2012 in WP No.234 of 2004 for an early hearing seeking allotment of the said large gala.
F 124 in favour of Ramchandra Dongre was cancelled.
G 247 which was a large Gala.
However, APMC did number accept the booking in the name of his son and therefore, Farhatullah Haji Barkatullah father of respondent No.2 booked the third gala in his own name.
As discussed earlier, allotment of Gala No.
APMC also took the stand that as per the numberms fixed by the learned Commissioner, there was numberscope of transfer of booking of gala and the booking amount from one person to another.
As the booking amount was paid in their individual capacity, Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre was allotted Gala No.
It is unfortunate that the said W.P.No.234 of 2004 has been kept alive for about fifteen years.
F 158 in a lottery companyducted by respondent No.5 Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee APMC on 25.09.2013.
By the companymon judgment dated 21.11.2018 allowed WP C No.10328/2014 filed by respondent No.2 Habibullah Farhatullah directing the APMC to allot the said gala in his favour.
Challenging the allotment of large gala to the appellant and also challenging the lottery method adopted by APMC, Ganpat Shinde who was number companysidered eligible to participate in the lottery filed W.P. No.2090 of 2015 before the High Court.
Both Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre and G.V. Lohot are carrying on the business in their individual name therefore, the amount paid by the individual partners cannot be treated as the payment made by the firm and the High Court rightly held that the appellant firm M s Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre is number entitled for a separate allotment of gala.
In the case of Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade v. Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market and Others 2012 1 SCC 729, the Supreme Court had cancelled the allotment of the large gala bearing No.
The High Court held that respondent No.2 Habibullah fulfilled all the eligibility criteria formulated by Justice Daud Committee.
APMC is directed to make allotment strictly by adhering to the numberms laid down by Justice Daud.
Out of 1029 galas, 732 being the large galas each measuring 450 sq.ft.
For those who came into the business from 1991 92 to 1994 95 had booked the galas up to 31.12.1993, the second time frame 1991 92 to 1994 95 was made applicable.
As pointed out earlier, the said new wholesale Fruit Market had total number of 1029 galas.
F 158 be done amongst the five eligible claimants viz.
For proper appreciation of the companytention regarding fulfilment of numberms or otherwise, we have referred to the relevant portion of the report of the Commissioner as to the numberms for entitlement of gala.
F 158 in the name of the said partnership firm.
small galas admeasuring 300 sq.
F 158 became available by virtue of the judgment passed in Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade, respondent No.2 ought to have been allotted the large Gala in companypliance with the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing in Appeal No.34/2002 which was filed by respondent No.2.
Challenging the cancellation of allotment of Gala No.
Against which, Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre filed writ petition W.P.No.234 of 2004.
With a view to facilitate traders dealing in wholesale trading of fruit, APMC has companystructed two types of galas shops viz.
Claim of Appellant M s Hande Wavare Co. Shri Kashinath Wavare Let us number companysider the eligibility of the appellant.
F 158 became vacant, Ramchandra Dongre filed a civil application in the said writ petition filed by him seeking an early hearing.
The High Court erred in relying upon the above order of Director of Agricultural Marketing and directing APMC to allot the said large gala to respondent No.2 without keeping in view the numberms fixed by the Daud Committee.
As per the companynter filed by APMC in writ petition W.P.No.10328 of 2014, other than appellant M s Hande Wavare Co., two other claimants viz.
On the other hand, by its order dated 26.11.2014, APMC agreed to allot small size Gala No.
respondent No.2.
loft each.
Based on the documents of the individual partners, the relevant findings of the High Court are as under In my view, the license obtained by an individual partner, the booking amount, if any, paid by such individual partner, payment of cess, if any, paid by such individual partner or other requirements which individual partner is required to be fulfilled as per the numberms suggested by the learned Commissioner for being eligible to allotment of such gala cannot be utilised by the partnership firm companysisting of such partners to make such firm eligible for allotment of any gala under the said numberms suggested by the learned Commissioner In my view, the documents relied upon by the petitioner for seeking allotment of the said gala No.
Out of the five claimants who were allowed to participate in the lottery, only four claimants participated in the said lottery drawn by APMC.
The said amount was paid by Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre and G.V. Lohot in their individual capacities and number by the firm.
200 sq.
100 sq.
As per the decision of the Board of Directors in the meeting dated 28.02.2014, APMC resolved to allot small Gala No.
i M s Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre respondent No.1 ii Shri Habibullah Farhatullah respondent No.2 iii M s Bhalchandra Chintaman Lele Shri Kedar Keshav Lele respondent No.3 iv Shri Ashok Dhondiba Punde respondent No.4 and v M s. Hande Wavare and Company Shri Kashinath Wavare appellant.
M 745 to Ganpat Shinde and the same was informed to Ganpat Shinde by letter dated 18.02.2015.
The Director held that APMC has number followed the statutory system and erred by allotting gala by lottery system to M s Hande Wavare and Co. thereby causing financial loss to the APMC and thus, set aside the allotment of large gala to the appellant.
i M s Ramchandra V. Dongre ii Mr. Habibullah Farhahtullah iii M s Bhalchandra Chintaman Lele Mr. Kedar Keshav Lele iv Mr. Ashok Dhondiba Punde and v M s Hande Wavare Co. by drawing lottery.
G.V. Lohot was number doing any business till the year 1991.
The High Court set aside the order passed by the Honble Minister for Co operation, Marketing and Textile by observing that APMC thus companyld number have drawn lottery to companysider the claim of other four claimants under the guise of implementing the order dated 07.05.1999 passed by the Division Bench in WP C No.2556/1999 in the case of Shantaram Y. Bhagat v. The Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee and another.
M 775 by APMC which was number accepted by respondent No.2.
F 124, Ramchandra Dongre filed writ petition W.P.No.234 of 2004.
300 sq.
Aggrieved by the order of APMC and the order of Minister, M s Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre filed W.P. Nos.8959 and 8975 of 2014 before the High Court and respondent No.2 Habibullah Farhatullah filed W.P. No.10328 of 2014.
Stand of APMC is that as per the meeting of Board of Directors held on 07.03.2013, it was inter alia resolved that allotment of Gala No.
F 158 amongst five traders viz.
Prior to the allotment in question, the appellant M s Hande Wavare Co. was allotted a small size Gala bearing No.
As pointed out earlier, as per the resolution of the Board of Directors held on 07.03.2013, appellant M s Hande Wavare Co., respondent No.2 Habibullah Farhatullah and three others were the eligible claimants.
In the application for allotment of large gala on 26.04.1999, respondent No.2 was allotted a small Gala No.
In the said letter, father of respondent No.2 has also stated that the third gala booked in his name i.e. in the name of father of respondent No.2 may be transferred to his son respondent No.2 and also the remaining amount be transferred to his son respondent No.2 and that he may be allotted a large gala.
By the order dated 09.11.2011, Director of Agricultural Marketing set aside the order dated 17.02.2010 and directed APMC to afford an opportunity of hearing to Ganpat Shinde and take appropriate decision on merits.
150 sq.
The order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing is companytrary to the numberms fixed by Daud Committee.
The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that the Government of Maharashtra decided to shift the wholesale fruit and vegetable market situated in Crawford Market to Vashi, Navi Mumbai in order to reduce the companygestion.
Habibullah Farhatullah respondent No.2 refused to participate in the lottery.
Challenging the order of the Board of Directors and the order dated 26.11.2014, Ganpat Shinde filed Appeal No.2/2015 before the Director, Marketing.
F 158 has been allotted by lottery system and therefore, his request for allotment of large gala cannot be companysidered.
F 158 and its value was fixed at Rs.28,77,000/ as per Government ready reckoner and was directed to pay Rs.27,69,500/ as companysideration within one month for allotment of said gala by deducting the amount of Rs.1,07,500/ initially deposited by the appellant for the purpose of allotment of one small gala and APMC asked the appellant to return the small gala allotted to him back to APMC.
and 297 small galas each measuring 300 sq.ft.
While allowing the Appeal No.34/2002 filed by respondent No.2 order dated 24.09.2002 , the Director of Agricultural Marketing called for report from the Joint Director of Marketing to ascertain whether there were other cases of allowing transfer of booking from one persons name to the other in allotting the galas in the name of transferee.
Appellant Ganpat Shinde challenged the Boards resolution dated 14.01.2015 in Appeal No.
On 26.04.1998, the High Court of Bombay appointed Justice S.M. Daud, former Judge of the High Court as the Court Commissioner to suggest the numberms to allot the galas shops in the newly companystructed wholesale market at Vashi to the traders so shifted.
i He should have booked gala by paying booking amount upto Rs.34,000/ before closing date ii He should hold licence issued by the APMC for at least two years between the year 1985 86 to 1994 95 iii He should have done business for at least five years between the years 1985 86 to 1994 96 iv He should have done business either in the year 1995 96 or 1996 97 by paying cess and v For entitlement of large gala, he should have paid cess between Rs.10,001/ to Rs.90,000/ in the years 1985 86 to 1994 According to the appellant, he was satisfying all the companyditions except companydition No.5.
The cess market fee paid by the appellant was less by Rs.155.90 to the required numberm of Rs.10,000/ .
Challenging the order of the Director, Marketing dated 29.04.2015 holding Ganpat Shinde entitled for large gala, Kashinath Wavare filed writ petition in WP Stamp No.35978 of 2017.
Pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 07.01.2013, a meeting was companyvened by the Board of Directors of APMC on 07.03.2013 to companyduct a lottery for allotment of Gala No.
After the appeal preferred by M s Indian Fruit Co. under Section 52B of MAPMC Act which was allowed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing vide order dated 13.12.2001, the allotment of second large Gala No.
G.V. Lohot started business by taking licence in his name for the year 1991 92 and Rs.32,725/ was paid by him on 09.09.1991 towards booking of gala.
The learned Commissioner submitted three reports which were accepted by the High Court.
The High Court heard all the writ petitions together and companysidered the claim of the claimants for allotment of large gala.
loft and large galas admeasuring 450 sq.
According to APMC, since Ganpat Shinde has number given his companysent for allotment of additional small gala and to the resolution of the Board of Administrators held on 14.01.2015, it was resolved to cancel the allotment of small size Gala No.
F 158.
Considering the submissions of both the parties, in the impugned judgment, the High Court rightly held that the partnership firm companysisting of Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre and V. Lohot is number separately entitled for allotment of any separate Gala.
The High Court vide its order dated 07.01.2013 disposed of the application acceding to the submissions of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee APMC that apart from the applicant therein there are four other claimants and directed APMC to scrutinize the claim of all eligible claimants for the allotment of Gala No.
Respondent No.6 vide its order dated 04.06.2014 partly allowed the appeal filed by Ramachandra V. Dongre and set aside the allotment by lottery to appellant M s Hande Wavare Co. and directed APMC to allot said gala by inviting bids from five claimants in a sealed companyer.
In the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 26.04.2013, allotment of the said gala by drawing lottery was companyfirmed.
Dehors the numberms fixed by Daud Committee which has been directed to be strictly companyplied with vide order dated 07.05.1999 in WP No.2556/1999 , respondent No.2 cannot claim entitlement for the large gala based on the said order and the order of the High Court holding that respondent No.2 is entitled to large gala cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside qua respondent No.2.
Respondent No.1 M s Ramchandra V. Dongre participated in the said lottery system under protest.
The decision to companyduct lottery was thereafter challenged by the firm M s Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre under Section 52B of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Development and Regulation Act, 1963 before respondent No.6 Director of Agricultural Marketing.
M 821.
The High Court held that once the large Gala No.
The market fee of Rs.9844.10 paid by the appellant was in the time frame of 1985 86 to 1994 95 and thus the appellant had number fulfilled the numberms as per the Daud Committee report and thus the appellant is falling under the category of marginally falls short of the numberms.
By the companymunication dated 26.11.2014, Ganpat Shinde was asked to pay Rs.19,66,517/ as per ready reckoner.
The appellant M s Hande Wavare Co. deposited the amount of Rs.27,69,500/ to APMC on 07.01.2014.
This has number been denied by the Respondent Market Committee.
During the period between 1985 86 to 1994 95, the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.9844.10 towards cess market fee and Rs.34,000/ towards booking a gala.
Learned Commissioner submitted three reports stipulating numberms for eligibility for two time frames which were accepted by the High Court.
F 158, the same was number companysidered and he was informed by APMC letter dated 19.10.2013 that Gala No.
M 745 to Ganpat Shinde.
Consequently large gala bearing No.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.07.10 165259 IST These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 21.11.2018 Reason passed by the High Court of Bombay in WP No.8959 of 2014 and batch of writ petitions in and by which the High Court held that only the second respondent is eligible for the allotment of large gala and directed the appellant M s Hande Wavare Co. to vacate the large Gala No.
APMC opposed the claim of respondent No.2 companytending that respondent No.2 did number pay any booking amount in his name or in the name of others and therefore, the question of allotment of any large gala to him did number arise.
F 158 and upheld the process of allotment undertaken by APMC by companyfirming the decision of the Board of Directors to draw the lottery and determining the price of the Gala at Rs.28,77,000/ instead of its market value of Rs.55 lakhs.
The appellant M s. Hande Wavare and Company was selected in the said lottery for allotment of the said Gala No.
On 26.08.2013, numberices were issued to all the said five claimants with direction to participate in the lottery proposed to be drawn on 19.09.2013.
The companytention of APMC is that Ramchandra Dongre has been doing business and paid money only in his individual capacity.
Another application filed by respondent No.2 for allotment of large gala was rejected on 02.05.2001 against which respondent No.2 filed an Appeal No.34/2002 before the Director of Agricultural Marketing.
The first time frame was 1985 86 to 1994 95 and second time frame was of 1991 92 to 1994 95.
The Honble Minister for Co operation, Marketing and Textile respondent No.7 vide his order dated 12.09.2014 allowed the revision petition filed by Kashinath Wavare and dismissed the revision petition filed by respondent No.1 Ramachandra Vitthal Dongre and set aside the order of respondent No.6 Director of Agricultural Marketing and companyfirmed the decision of APMC drawing the lottery and allotting the said gala to the appellant M s. Hande Wavare Co. The Honble Minister observed that there was number only a single party but there were five claimants who were eligible for the allotment of Gala No.
The said order of the High Court reads as under Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court Justice Daud was appointed for laying down numberms for the purpose of allotment of Galas in the Agricultural Produce market Committees market at Vashi, New Bombay, Justice Daud has accordingly passed his awards laying down the numberms.
Challenging the said order of Director of Agricultural Marketing, respondent No.1 also filed revision in Revision Petition No.27 of 2014 under Section 52B of MAPMC Act before the State Government.
Registered Deed of Sub lease dated 29.10.1999 was also executed in the name of Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre in his individual capacity.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
F 158 became vacant.
The appellant Kashinath M. Wavare filed W.P. ST No.35978 of 2017 against the order of the Director of Marketing dated 29.04.2015.
M 745 to Ganpat Shinde for value of Rs.25,50,000/ i.e. at the price determined by Government approved valuer.
On 04.01.1999, father of respondent No.2 Farhatullah Haji Barkatullah paid an amount of Rs.1,32,000/ as booking amount for three large galas.
In his letter dated 23.03.1999, father of respondent No.2 stated that he had paid Rs.1,32,000/ for booking of two large galas initially and that his son Habibullah started the business of fruits trade since 1991 1992 and that he asked for booking of one large gala in the name of his son viz.
The Daud Committee provided for eligibility for two time frames.
In the said order, the High Court further issued directions that in case any galas remaining in balance after allotment in accordance with numberms, APMC to allot the same to those who marginally fall short of the numberms that have been laid down.
The cess space nexus will be thus Total Cess Paid Entitlement Rs.2,500/ to Rs.7,500/ Half small gala Rs.7,501/ to Rs.25,000/ 1 small gala Above Rs.25,000/ 1 large gala The High Court vide its order dated 07.05.1999 in Writ Petition No.2556 of 1999 directed APMC to make allotment strictly by adhering to the numberms laid down by Daud Committee.
F 158 which were the documents of individual partner of the petitioner companyld number be used and or relied upon for the purpose of seeking allotment of the said gala No.
The appellant also surrendered its small gala to APMC.
As per numberms fixed by the learned Commissioner for allotment of three large galas, total cess payable is above Rs.3,00,000/ .
The dispute pertains to the allotment of large Gala shop No.
Since father of respondent No.2 paid amount less than Rs.3,00,000/ , he was allotted only two large galas.
As per the numberms suggested by the learned Commissioner, the wholesale broker in fruit section who was falling in the time frame of 1985 86 to 1994 95 was entitled for large gala on fulfillment of the companyditions viz.
The Supreme Court vide its order dated 11.01.2019 issued numberice and directed the parties to maintain status quo.
The Director of Agricultural Marketing further observed that APMC should have companysidered the market rate and the value of the said gala from the government approved valuer and should have called for sealed tenders from five claimants and ought to have allotted the said gala to the claimant who is paying the maximum value.
