Latest news with #MaharashtraGovernmentResolution
The Hindu
25-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court dismisses petition against Maharashtra's agri procurement scheme, calls them ‘baseless'
The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) dated March 12, 2024, on the procurement and supply of agricultural inputs to farmers, calling them 'totally baseless' and imposing a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners. 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.
The Hindu
25-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹1 lakh cost
The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) on the procurement and supply of certain agricultural items, terming them 'totally baseless'. 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 DAP, 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 the 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 (DBT) 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 (Rs 1 lakh) on the petitioners,' the court said.
Hindustan Times
25-07-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
HC junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹1 lakh cost
Mumbai, The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution on the procurement and supply of certain agricultural items, terming them 'totally baseless'. HC junks petitions challenging Maharashtra's farm procurement scheme, imposes ₹ 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.
Indian Express
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Decision in public interest': Bombay HC dismisses plea challenging handing over of Thane land to MMRDA for Metro car shed
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea challenging the validity of the Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) of October 2023, handing over 174.76 hectares of land in Thane to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to set up an integrated Metro car depot. The Metro car shed facility at Mogharpada in Thane will serve as the central maintenance and operations hub for Metro lines 4, 4A, 10 and 11, covering nearly 56 km from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CSMT) to Mira Road. The high court, while rejecting the plea by a society of farmers who claimed to be in possession of the said land for several decades, noted that the government's decision 'cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said either to be arbitrary or suffer from vice of non-application of mind.' The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne passed the order on a writ petition filed by Kharbhumi Krushi Samnvay Samiti (Reg) and others challenging the GR. 'The decision to transfer the subject land has been taken in public interest for the setting up of Integrated Metro Car Shed Depot, which is a public purpose. A provision has been made for rehabilitation of the leaseholders as well as encroachers… We do not find any merit in this writ petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed,' the high court held. The petitioners submitted that the MMRDA, on November 13, 2019, informed the Thane district collector about the proposed Metro car shed depot and sought that the subject land be acquired for the project. On January 12, 2022, the government issued a notice in relation to Mumbai Metro Line 4A (Kasarvadavli to Gaimukh) and the proposed Metro car shed project, after which the collector prepared a list of landholders in January 2023 and transferred the same in favour of the MMRDA on October 15, 2023. Moreover, space was set apart for the coastal road besides land for residential and commercial development. The aggrieved petitioners approached the high court in 2024. Advocate Ashwin Thool, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that they were not the owners of the subject land belonging to the state government, but they are lessees having cultivating possession for the past several decades, and therefore the impugned decision is arbitrary. On the other hand, MMRDA's counsel Akshay Shinde submitted that 22.5 per cent and 12.5 per cent component is reserved for the rehabilitation of leaseholders and the encroachers, respectively, and in case the petitioners fall under the said categories, they would be rehabilitated as per the state's decision. After perusing the submissions, the high court observed that the land belonged to the state government, and it was free to use its land in accordance with the law.
