Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered appeals against the Bombay High Court's judgment dated 21.11.2018, which directed the allotment of large Gala No.F-158 in the Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Vashi, to respondent No.2-Habibullah Farhatullah. The dispute arose after the Supreme Court in Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade v. Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market (2012) 1 SCC 729 cancelled the earlier allotment of the same gala, making it vacant. Five claimants, including the appellant M/s Hande Wavare & Co., were found eligible by APMC, and a lottery was conducted on 19.09.2013, in which the appellant was selected. The appellant paid the consideration and surrendered its small gala. However, respondent No.1-M/s Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre challenged the lottery before the Director of Agricultural Marketing, who set aside the allotment and directed sealed tenders. The Minister for Co-operation, Marketing and Textile reversed the Director's order and upheld the lottery. The High Court, in writ petitions, allowed the claim of respondent No.2-Habibullah Farhatullah, holding that he was entitled to the gala based on an earlier order dated 24.09.2002 of the Director of Agricultural Marketing, which had not been challenged by APMC. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in relying on that order without considering the eligibility of respondent No.2 on merits, and that the order was not binding on the appellant and other claimants who were not parties to that proceeding. The Court also held that the lottery method adopted by APMC was valid and in accordance with the High Court's earlier directions. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the order of the Minister, thereby upholding the allotment of the large gala to the appellant.
Headnote
A) Agricultural Marketing - Allotment of Galas - Eligibility Criteria - The dispute pertains to allotment of large gala in APMC market - The court examined whether respondent No.2 fulfilled the eligibility norms formulated by Justice Daud Committee - Held that the High Court erred in relying on an earlier order of the Director of Agricultural Marketing without independently assessing eligibility (Paras 2-9). B) Administrative Law - Binding Nature of Orders - Rights of Third Parties - The order dated 24.09.2002 of the Director of Agricultural Marketing was not challenged by APMC - However, the appellant and other claimants were not parties to that proceeding - Held that such order cannot be binding on third parties who were not heard (Paras 10-12). C) Agricultural Marketing - Lottery Method - Validity - APMC conducted lottery among five eligible claimants for allotment of large gala - The High Court set aside the lottery - Held that the lottery method was valid and in accordance with the directions of the High Court dated 07.05.1999 (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in directing allotment of large Gala No.F-158 to respondent No.2-Habibullah Farhatullah based on an earlier order of the Director of Agricultural Marketing, and whether the lottery method adopted by APMC for allotment of the gala was valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment dated 21.11.2018, and restored the order of the Minister for Co-operation, Marketing and Textile dated 12.09.2014, thereby upholding the allotment of large Gala No.F-158 to the appellant M/s Hande Wavare & Co.
Law Points
- Eligibility criteria for allotment of galas
- Lottery method for allotment
- Binding nature of orders
- Rights of third parties
- Scope of revision under MAPMC Act
