Bombay High Court dismisses petition against Maharashtra's agri procurement scheme, calls them ‘baseless'
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne rejected a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Agri Sprayers T.I.M. Association and others contested the tender-based procurement model adopted under the new GR.
The Bench ruled that there was no flaw in the GR, which outlines the government's plan to supply five items — battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags — to farmers under a special scheme for boosting productivity and developing the value chain of cotton, soybean, and oilseeds.
The order passed on July 22 and made available on July 25, observed that filing of these baseless petitions has resulted in creation of hurdles in effective implementation of the Special Action Plan, which is aimed at giving impetus to cultivation of specified crops and benefitting the farmers.
'A trader and manufacturer of one of the products has attempted to frustrate the Special Action Plan with the motive of promoting his own business interests. For this reason, also, while dismissing the Petitions, we are inclined to impose costs on the Petitioners.'
The petition filed by Agri Sprayers T.I.M. Association and others, challenged the GR dated March 12, 2024, which contemplates procurement and supply of five items: fertilisers, pesticides and agriculture equipment to the farmers under special program for enhancement of productivity.
The petitioners argued that the new procurement model marked a shift from the 2016 GR, which had facilitated farm subsidies via the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, enabling farmers to purchase such items from local vendors. They alleged that the state agencies were now procuring these products at inflated prices, thus harming both manufacturers and farmers.
The petition said that the GR has the effect of deleting the items such as: Battery Operated Sprayers, Nano Urea, Nano DAP, Metaldihide Pesticide and cotton storage bags from Schedule-A of the GR dated December 5, 2016, by which amounts towards purchase of the said items were to be directly paid to the farmers under Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).
The petitioners said they are aggrieved by the action of the State government in directing procurement of the items for supply thereof to the farmers through Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (MAIDCL) and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited (MSPCL) and insisted that the subsidy for procurement of the said five items must be paid in cash to the farmers so as to enable them to purchase the same from local traders rather than procuring and supplying them through agencies like MAIDCL, MSPC, etc.
The Bench ordered, 'We do not find any merit in Writ Petition as well as PIL petition and both are accordingly dismissed by imposing costs of ₹1,00,000 on Petitioners to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority within 4 weeks. If costs are not paid within the stipulated time, the Registry shall make a report to the jurisdictional District Collector for recovery of the amount of costs from Mr. Tushar Padgilwar as arrears of land revenue. In view of the dismissal of the Writ petition as well as the PIL petition, the Interim Applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.'
The petitioners argued that the new procurement model marked a shift from the 2016 GR, which had facilitated farm subsidies via the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, enabling farmers to purchase such items from local vendors. They alleged that the state agencies were now procuring these products at inflated prices, thus harming both manufacturers and farmers.
Advocate Nikhil Sakhardande, appearing for the petitioners, argued the DBT model offered farmers better value, letting them buy locally at competitive rates.
Senior advocate V.R. Dhond, representing the State, clarified that the current GR was part of a broader initiative and not merely about product distribution.
The court agreed and held that the two GRs were distinct in objective and scope. It observed that the 2016 GR focused on DBT subsidies for broader agricultural items, whereas the 2024 GR aimed at structured, state-led procurement for a targeted action plan to improve oilseed productivity.
The Bench ruled that the petitioners had 'no locus standi' to challenge the GR as their interests were purely commercial and did not reflect any public concern. It held that the petitioners had 'erroneously mixed up' the objectives of two separate GRs and thereby failed to establish any legal infirmity in the March 2024 resolution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
It started in a jail cell. Now, it fights to free those wrongfully jailed
It started in a jail cell. Now, it fights to free those wrongfully jailed Mohammed Wajihuddin TNN Jul 26, 2025, 21:27 IST IST Besides its work on the 7/11 case, the Innocence Network India is helping other terror accused with legal aid A narrow, rain-soaked lane in Mumbai's Vikhroli leads to a small ground-floor room. Inside, a few chairs, a chatai, shelves of books, and maps of India and the world hang on the wall. This unassuming space is the 'secretariat' of Innocence Network India , a coalition of lawyers, prison‑rights activists and civil society groups who work for 'the rights of those wrongfully prosecuted or convicted, especially under terrorism charges .' On July 21, when the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 men convicted of the 2006 Mumbai train blasts — also known as the 7/11 bombings — some credit was due to this little-known coalition that kept the pressure alive, along with the efforts of the Maharashtra unit office of Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind . Wahid Shaikh, who helped found the network, is visibly happy, and yet combative, seated in his two-room tenement. It's where Shaikh, a school teacher in Nagpada, central Mumbai, spends most of his after-school hours running Acquit Undertrial, his one-man YouTube channel that amplifies cases of alleged wrongful prosecution and demands compensation for acquitted convicts. It was here that he recorded a congratulatory message for the accused and their families the night before the verdict. 'I was 100% sure that the High Court would exonerate them. I recorded it before the order was pronounced,' says Shaikh. He should know. He was one of 13 men arrested under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for the train blasts. He spent nine years in Arthur Road Jail before being acquitted in 2015. The only one to walk free at the time.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
State challenges Mumbai train blast acquittal, but appeals in key terror cases continue to face delays
The Maharashtra government recently announced its decision to challenge the Bombay High Court's acquittal of 12 men in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case in the Supreme Court. The government's decision to challenge acquittal and discharges in past terror cases, including its appeal against the discharge of nine accused in the 2006 Malegaon blast case, filed in 2016, has however seen little progress in the Bombay High Court over the past eight years. Interestingly, two of the men— Shaikh Mohammed Ali (57) and Asif Khan Bashir Khan (54)—acquitted in the train blasts case were also among those discharged in the Malegaon case. The Maharashtra ATS had named nine men in the 2006 Malegaon blast case. The accusations against these men of having carried out the blasts was first investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and later endorsed by the CBI, which took over the case a year later. However, in 2011, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which took over the probe, filed a chargesheet absolving the nine men, including Khan and Ali, of all charges. Instead, the NIA named four other individuals, allegedly members of a Hindu extremist group, as the main accused. The nine men were released from prison in 2016, but the state government immediately challenged their discharge. While the trial of the four Hindu men named by the NIA is ongoing and all four are currently out on bail, the high ourt's hearing of the state government's appeal against the discharge of the nine original accused has barely progressed. While the seven men who were freed in 2016, along with Khan and Ali, are now outside prison, the delayed legal process has left them in limbo, with the fear of returning behind bars still hanging over their heads. 'We have been living a free life for over nine years now. However, the fear of being called back to prison definitely looms over our heads. The appeal by the state government against our acquittal has hardly moved in all this time. While we are thankful that the judiciary discharged us from the case, I also believe that there is a need to fast-track cases so that people can get closure,' said one of the men discharged in the Malegaon 2006 blast case. 2006 was a pivotal year for Maharashtra when it came to terror-related incidents, marked by three major cases. First, in May, the Maharashtra ATS intercepted a Tata Sumo near Chandwad in Nashik district in the Aurangabad arms haul case, where police seized 43kg of RDX, 16 AK-47 rifles, 3,200 rounds of ammunition, and 50 hand grenades. Subsequently, on July 11, 2006, a series of blasts in Mumbai's suburban trains claimed 187 lives. Two months later, on September 8, 2006, four blasts in Malegaon killed 31 people. During its investigation, the Maharashtra Police arrested and put on trial 44 people in connection with these three cases. Among them, three accused Mohammed Faisal Attaur Rahman Shaikh, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam, and Asif Khan Bashir Khan were common links across the incidents. Faisal was named in both the Aurangabad case and the Mumbai train blasts. While he was convicted in the Aurangabad arms haul case, he was acquitted in the Mumbai train blasts by the Bombay High Court. He is currently incarcerated in Aurangabad. Two other men, Asif Khan and Mohammed Ali Shaikh, were seen as main conspirators in both the Malegaon and Mumbai train blasts. Police alleged that they were central to Pakistani-sponsored subversive activities in India. In the Malegaon case, both men were accused of attending a meeting in July 2006 in Mumbai to plan the blasts, along with other co-conspirators and a few Pakistanis. They were also alleged to have taken these Pakistanis to Malegaon, where the bombs were assembled. These individuals then reportedly left Malegaon with Khan and Ali after assembling six bombs and storing them in a godown. Khan and Ali were among the nine men initially named in the Malegaon blasts before being discharged in 2016. Asif Khan Bashir Khan (54) – Status: Free The elder son of a scooter mechanic from Jalgaon, Asif Khan was locally known for his social activism, particularly on issues affecting slum dwellers. In 1996, at the age of 23, he took part in a protest against the demolition of homes in Khwaja Nagri. The protest turned violent, police opened fire, and two people were killed—one of them Asif's cousin—which spurred Khan's deeper involvement in activism. Later that year, Asif moved to Mumbai to work as a civil engineer. Police allege that around this time, he was radicalized, became a member of SIMI, and was in contact with Pakistani terror groups. He was arrested in 2006 and accused of procuring pressure cookers and assembling bombs for the Mumbai train blasts, including planting one at Borivali. He was also linked to the Malegaon blasts and accused of ferrying Pakistani nationals to Malegaon, who allegedly manufactured the bombs that exploded in the city. Khan, however, denied the charges, claiming he was at his Kandivali office on the day of the Mumbai train blasts. Shaikh Mohammed Ali (57) – Status: Free Shaikh Mohammed Ali was accused of traveling to Pakistan via Iran to receive subversive training. He was also accused of being part of the conspiracy and of allowing his residence in Govandi to be used for assembling the bombs used in the Mumbai train blasts, allegedly with the help of Pakistani nationals. He was further linked to the Malegaon blasts, accused of participating in the conspiracy and facilitating the travel of Pakistani individuals to Malegaon for planning the attacks. A resident of Shivaji Nagar ,one of Mumbai's poorest localities, Ali worked at a cooperative bank before moving to Dubai. He reportedly returned within a month and started a small business supplying Unani medicines. During this period, he was allegedly active in SIMI and had launched a campaign against video parlours in his locality. He had been previously booked for being a SIMI member and was summoned by police several times, including after the 2002–03 Mumbai blasts. According to investigators, his 100-square-foot home was used to assemble explosives and remained under constant police surveillance. Mohammed Faisal Attaur Rahman Shaikh (50) – Status: Incarcerated (Aurangabad Jail) Mira Road-based Faisal Shaikh, 50, was accused of heading the Lashkar-e-Toiba's (LeT) Mumbai unit and convicted for being the key financier of the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. He was accused of planning the conspiracy, acquiring hawala funds, harboring Pakistani operatives, assembling the bombs, and planting them. Faisal is the eldest of three sons of Attaur Rahman, who worked in Saudi Arabia. After spending time in Pune, the family shifted to Mira Road, where Faisal was allegedly indoctrinated by SIMI. Faisal is accused of conspiring as early as 1999 of waging a war against India by training Indian Muslim youth in terrorist activities. In June 2001, he obtained a valid Indian passport with the intention of traveling to Pakistan. Six months later, in January 2002, he allegedly crossed the border via the Samjhauta Express and trained with LeT operatives in Muzaffarabad and Lahore. He was also accused and subsequentyl convicted for being a part of a conspiracy in the Aurangabad arms haul case. Police claimed he was responsible for indoctrinating both his younger brothers. One of them—Muzammil (also arrested for the 2006 Mumbai train blast) was acquitted along with him while the other is reportedly absconding. His conviction in the Aurangabad case is the reason that he was not walked out free.
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
Does being patriotic Indians mean we can't protest the horrors in Gaza?
When the Bombay High Court scolded petitioners seeking permission to hold a protest over the Gaza conflict this week, stating that they should 'look at their own country,' it did more than just deny a plea. To mourn for children in Gaza is not to betray India. To protest the unjust killing of innocents abroad is not to ignore injustice at home. It is to declare, as our freedom fighters once did, that truth has no borders and conscience no passport. At the heart of this matter lies Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. These are not minor provisions. They are foundational to the democratic life of the Republic. Protest, in this framework, is not a disruption of order — it is the music of democratic breathing. It is the only means by which ordinary citizens, powerless in the machinery of state, can voice their hope, grief, and resistance. To deny permission for a peaceful protest mourning deaths in Gaza — under the reasoning that it does not concern India — is to misunderstand the very idea of Indian constitutionalism. The Supreme Court, in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs Union of India (2018), has made it clear: 'Citizens have a fundamental right to assemble peacefully and protest against governmental action.' And in Amit Sahni vs Commissioner of Police (2020), while dealing with the Shaheen Bagh protests, the Court emphasised that protest must be balanced with public order — but it did not deny the right itself. That distinction matters. Courts are not to extinguish the flame of protest but to ensure that it does not burn others' homes. Even earlier, in the landmark Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978), the Court warned against arbitrary state action: 'Any restriction on fundamental rights must pass the test of reasonableness and fairness. Arbitrary denial erodes the very fabric of liberty.' What was the crime here? A candlelit gathering. A moment of collective grief. A people who could not remain indifferent. The Indian tradition does not shy away from this impulse — it sanctifies it. From the Mahā Upanishad's declaration of vasudhaiva kutumbakam — 'The world is one family' — to the Isha Upanishad's invocation: 'He who sees all beings in himself and himself in all beings… he never turns away from it,' Indian thought has always affirmed that compassion is a civic virtue. Even our national poet, Rabindranath Tagore, warned against the dangers of closed sympathies: 'Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high/ Where the world has not been broken up into fragments/ By narrow domestic walls.' The judge's remarks — to 'look at your own country' — seem to invoke a narrow nationalism that betrays this expansive inheritance. Indeed, Mahatma Gandhi himself said: 'My patriotism is not an exclusive thing. It is all-embracing… I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.' In that spirit, a gathering for Gaza is not un-Indian. It is Indian in its deepest moral sense. Great civilisations not only permit dissent — they preserve it. And great poets, through centuries, have told us what silence costs. Kabir, the weaver-saint, wrote: 'Dard ke dāman se jo lipta, soī to insān hai/ Dusre ke dukh se jo dukh paaye, vahī Bhagwān hai.' (One who clings to the cloak of sorrow is truly human/One who grieves another's grief — that is God.) Sa'adi of Shiraz, whose words are etched into the walls of the United Nations building in New York, said: 'Human beings are limbs of one another/ Created from the same essence/ When one limb is afflicted with pain/The others cannot remain at peace.' And lest we forget the price of selective empathy, we must remember the warning of Pastor Martin Niemöller, who survived Nazi prisons: 'First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me —and there was no one left to speak for me.' This poem is not history, it is prophecy. And we forget it at our peril. By reprimanding citizens who seek to protest global injustice, we do not 'look at our own country'. We blindfold it. When we tell people to silence their grief for others, what we're really saying is: 'Let injustice grow, as long as it's not at your door.' But injustice, like fire, spreads unseen through silence. This is not a Gaza issue. It is not a Muslim issue. It is not even a foreign affairs issue. It is an Indian constitutional issue. For it is we, the people — not robes, not gavels — who breathe life into our Constitution. In the end, history will not ask whether we obeyed orders, but whether we saw clearly — and stood in solidarity with whoever in our universal family was suffering. For again, we are the people who emphasised at the G20 we hosted recently that India's abiding value is vasudhaiva kutumbakam. The writer is President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Grain from Ukraine Ambassador for South Asia. He has worked at the United Nations on all five continents and is also a multilingual award-winning poet
