File photo of Bombay High Court.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
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.
Published – July 25, 2025 04:25 pm IST
