HC junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹1 lakh cost
₹ 1 lakh cost
Finding no merit in the Public Interest Litigation and a writ petition filed against GR of March 12, 2024, the court also imposed a cost of one lakh on the petitioners.
The pleas were dismissed by a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne on July 22.
As per the detailed order, made available on Friday, the bench ruled that the challenge to the government's decision was 'totally baseless and deserves rejection'.
The court said it did not find any error in the GR concerning the procurement of five items under a special action plan for productivity enhancement and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseeds.
'Thus, no interference was warranted in the tender process implemented for procurement of the said items,' it said.
The March 12, 2024, GR details the procurement and supply of five items – battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano D, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags – to farmers.
'The said petition is filed by an association of manufacturers of sprayers, who have no locus standi to challenge implementation of special action plan by the state government,' the bench said.
The court said that to protect their private interest, manufacturers and traders cannot be permitted to challenge the broader scheme to facilitate the productivity enhancement of the listed crop.
The petitioners had contended that the five items were removed from an earlier GR dated December 5, 2016, which allowed farm subsidies through the Direct Benefit Transfer scheme and were included in the new GR, which provides for their procurement through state agencies.
The state agencies, including Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited, procured these items at 'exorbitant' rates, claimed the PIL.
Senior advocate, Nikhil Sakhardande, who represented the petitioners, told the court that the DBT scheme was more beneficial to farmers, allowing them to purchase items at cheaper rates from local traders. The new system favoured large contractors, he argued.
Appearing for the state government, senior advocate V R Dhond contended that the earlier GR operated under different objectives.
He stated that the March 2024 GR was aimed at enhancing productivity and value chain development of cotton, soybean and other oilseed crops, which he called a broader programme not limited to just product procurement.
The HC accepted the state's arguments and said the two GRs operate in 'completely different and independent spheres' with distinct objectives. The petitioners had 'erroneously mixed up the two GRs which have no nexus with each other', it held.
Further, the bench held that these 'baseless' petitions created hurdles in the effective implementation of the plan, aimed at giving impetus to the cultivation of specified crops and benefiting farmers.
'For this reason also, while dismissing the petitions, we are inclined to impose costs on the petitioners,' the court said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Favouritism? GNIDA's Rs 241-crore trash tender under Allahabad high court scanner
Noida: Greater Noida Authority's move to appoint a private agency for waste collection in Greater Noida West has come under scrutiny from Allahabad high court. The contract — pegged at over Rs 241 crore — pertains to integrated mechanical sweeping, manual sweeping, door-to-door collection and transportation of waste in Zone 1 and 2 of Greater Noida (West). The HC has restrained Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) from finalising any contract under the latest tender until further orders. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida The court is examining allegations that the bidding process was repeatedly cancelled and modified in a manner designed to favour one particular bidder and exclude others. As an interim measure, a division bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar ruled, "Although the tender process pursuant to RFP dated June 18 may proceed, no final decision shall be taken or contract awarded without leave of this court." GNIDA has been granted two weeks to respond to the allegations and explain the rationale for cancelling previous RFPs and altering eligibility norms. The matter will next be heard on Aug 11. The court observed the allegations, if true, raise serious questions about the transparency of public procurement and compliance with judicial orders. The allegations pertain to the RFP and eligibility criteria. The court, while hearing a petition filed by two private agencies on July 17, observed, "The allegations raised by the petitioners, if found to be true, have serious implications upon fair competition, transparency in public procurement and compliance with judicial orders." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cargo Ship Meets Pirates - Watch What the Captain Does Next! Tips and Tricks Undo The court also took note of serious allegations that the Authority issued the request for proposal (RFP) five times in the span of a year, particularly the clause concerning consortium participation and financial eligibility criteria. These changes, the petitioners allege, were arbitrary and appeared designed to disqualify them while giving undue advantage to a preferred bidder. The first RFP was floated on July 2, 2024 and later modified through a corrigendum on Aug 24, allowing consortium bids. However, it was cancelled due to only two bidders participating. A second RFP was issued on Nov 6 with an expanded scope of work but without the provision for consortiums and was also later withdrawn. A third RFP was floated on Jan 13, 2025 with the same project scope and again disallowing consortium bids. Petitioners challenged this in the HC, seeking inclusion of consortiums, but the HC disposed of the petition after GNIDA informed it that it opened the technical bids and the tender process was in the final stage of finalisation. However, on May 2, GNIDA issued the same RFP for the fourth time. The two companies submitted a joint bid as a consortium, seeking that their application be accepted and considered on merits. When the Authority did not address their submission, they again approached the HC. On May 17, the HC directed the development authority to examine the prayer of the petitioners and take an appropriate decision. However, the Authority once again cancelled the fourth RFP on June 3 without addressing the petitioners' concerns. The matter was again brought before the court, prompting the HC to seek clarity from GNIDA on June 9 regarding compliance with its May 17 directive. However, the Authority issued a fifth RFP on June 18, again excluding consortiums and slightly altering the eligibility criteria. For instance, the required average turnover was increased from Rs 42.25 crore to Rs 44.10 crore — a change the petitioners allege lacks any rational justification and was intended to disqualify them. "The eligibility conditions in the RFPs have been tinkered with in a manner that appears to be tailored to suit a particular bidder, to the exclusion of others. These minor, odd increases in financial turnover thresholds, without any rational basis or objective justification, appear to be made solely to render the petitioners ineligible and to favour another bidder. The figures are not rounded off, nor are they explained through any financial model or policy rationale, which strongly suggests that the changes are deliberate, artificial and discriminatory in nature," the petitioners said in their latest plea filed earlier this month. Defending its actions, GNIDA informed the court that tendering was a matter of policy and administrative discretion.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC rejects bail of suspected Isis member in arms case
NEW DELHI: Delhi HC has rejected the bail plea of a suspected Isis member accused of procuring arms and ammunition for the proscribed outfit and using social media to promote its objectives. In a recent order, a bench of justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld a trial court detention order, stating it was not mechanical in nature. HC said accused Mohd Rizwan Ashraf could not be released due to the ongoing investigation, as releasing him and others at a crucial stage would impede the probe. "This court is satisfied that the trial court applied its mind to the grounds set forth. The trial court categorically observed the investigation progressed substantially during remand extensions granted by it and the investigation was not stagnant. Order of the trial court extended custody not as a matter of routine but based on credible material outlining the investigative steps requiring completion," the bench observed. Ashraf was arrested by NIA in 2023 under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) provisions. He challenged various orders of the trial court extending his custody, including on Feb 24, 2024, when his judicial custody was extended by 25 days. On the same day, the trial court dismissed his plea for default bail. Ashraf's counsel submitted the orders were passed by the trial court in a mechanical and perfunctory manner and did not indicate any individual assessment of his role. He argued NIA failed to demonstrate why Ashraf's continued detention was necessary for probe. However, HC said three accused persons, including Ashraf, were active ISIS and they were propagating the ideology of the organisation and trying to recruit youth for its objectives. "At the time when the remand orders were being considered, material was being unearthed to establish that the accused, including the appellant (Ashraf), were conducting recce at various Indian cities including, but not limited to, Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Surat for terrorist activities," it pointed out, adding conspiracy was also being hatched in other countries. "A money trail from Maldives was also being investigated. Material on record indicates that investigation was also underway to find out about other associates of the accused," HC noted.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
One year after contractor approval, green nod for Madh-Versova bridge
Mumbai: Almost a year after issuing a letter of acceptance to the contractor, the BMC has obtained an NOC from the Union environment ministry for the proposed Madh-Versova bridge. The civic body now has to seek approval from the Bombay High Court, as the project will impact 2.3 hectares of protected mangroves -- a mandatory step for any construction in ecologically sensitive zones. "The exact number of mangroves affected is yet to be determined. Once all approvals are in place, the work order will be issued," a BMC official said. The total contract cost stands at Rs 2,395 crore, comprising Rs 1,990 crore for civil works, Rs 39.89 crore for operations and maintenance over three years, and Rs 365.36 crore as GST (18%). T he planned cable-stayed flyover will span 2.06 km, connecting Madh island to Versova by crossing over the Madh creek. Currently, the two areas are linked by a ferry service, with no direct road access. Motorists must take lengthy detours via Link Road, SV Road or Western Express Highway, often facing travel times exceeding 45 minutes during peak hours. The bridge is expected to cut commute times by 40 to 60 minutes. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Environmentalists have voiced strong objections, citing the destruction of natural stormwater buffers. Advocate Godfrey Pimenta said, "In the 1991 Development Plan, this was designated as a no-development zone (NDZ). However, the 2034 DP introduced a road network that includes the Madh-Versova bridge. This move will systematically destroy natural habitats and will burden local infrastructure beyond its capacity. "
