Bombay High Court dismisses petition towards Maharashtras 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 mannequin adopted underneath the brand new GR. 

The Bench dominated that there was no flaw within the GR, which outlines the federal government’s plan to provide 5 gadgets — battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage luggage — to farmers underneath a particular scheme for enhancing productiveness and growing the worth chain of cotton, soybean, and oilseeds. 

The order handed on July 22 and made obtainable on July 25, noticed that submitting of those baseless petitions has resulted in creation of hurdles in efficient implementation of the Special Action Plan, which is geared toward giving impetus to cultivation of specified crops and benefitting the farmers.  

“A dealer and producer of one of many merchandise has tried to frustrate the Special Action Plan with the motive of selling his personal enterprise pursuits. For this cause, additionally, whereas dismissing the Petitions, we’re inclined to impose prices 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 provide of 5 gadgets: fertilisers, pesticides and agriculture tools to the farmers underneath particular program for enhancement of productiveness.   

The petitioners argued that the brand new procurement mannequin marked a shift from the 2016 GR, which had facilitated farm subsidies through the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, enabling farmers to buy such gadgets from native distributors. They alleged that the state companies have been now procuring these merchandise at inflated costs, thus harming each producers and farmers.

The petition mentioned that the GR has the impact of deleting the gadgets corresponding to: Battery Operated Sprayers, Nano Urea, Nano DAP, Metaldihide Pesticide and cotton storage luggage from Schedule-A of the GR dated December 5, 2016, by which quantities in the direction of buy of the mentioned gadgets have been to be instantly paid to the farmers underneath Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).

The petitioners mentioned they’re aggrieved by the motion of the State authorities in directing procurement of the gadgets for provide thereof to the farmers by Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (MAIDCL) and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited (MSPCL) and insisted that the subsidy for procurement of the mentioned 5 gadgets have to be paid in money to the farmers in order to allow them to buy the identical from native merchants fairly than procuring and supplying them by companies like MAIDCL, MSPC, and so on. 

The Bench ordered, “We don’t discover any advantage in Writ Petition in addition to PIL petition and each are accordingly dismissed by imposing prices of ₹1,00,000 on Petitioners to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority inside 4 weeks. If prices usually are not paid inside the stipulated time, the Registry shall make a report back to the jurisdictional District Collector for restoration of the quantity of prices from Mr. Tushar Padgilwar as arrears of land income. In view of the dismissal of the Writ petition in addition to the PIL petition, the Interim Applications don’t survive and are accordingly disposed of.”  

The petitioners argued that the brand new procurement mannequin marked a shift from the 2016 GR, which had facilitated farm subsidies through the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, enabling farmers to buy such gadgets from native distributors. They alleged that the state companies have been now procuring these merchandise at inflated costs, thus harming each producers and farmers. 

Advocate Nikhil Sakhardande, showing for the petitioners, argued the DBT mannequin supplied farmers higher worth, letting them purchase regionally at aggressive charges. 

Senior advocate V.R. Dhond, representing the State, clarified that the present GR was a part of a broader initiative and never merely about product distribution.  

The court docket agreed and held that the 2 GRs have been distinct in goal and scope. It noticed that the 2016 GR targeted on DBT subsidies for broader agricultural gadgets, whereas the 2024 GR geared toward structured, state-led procurement for a focused motion plan to enhance oilseed productiveness. 

 The Bench dominated that the petitioners had “no locus standi” to problem the GR as their pursuits have been purely business and didn’t mirror any public concern. It held that the petitioners had “erroneously blended up” the aims of two separate GRs and thereby failed to determine any authorized infirmity within the March 2024 decision.