Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed two petitions challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) dated March 12, 2024, regarding procurement and supply of certain agricultural items, terming them “totally baseless”. The court also imposed a cost of Rs1 lakh each on the petitioners.
Court Rejects Pleas by Sprayer Manufacturers' Group and Individual PIL
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, on July 22, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Umesh Bhole and a writ petition filed by Agri Sprayers T.I.M Association and others.
The court noted that there was no merit in the petitions which sought to challenge the government’s special action plan aimed at enhancing productivity and value chain development for crops like cotton, soybean, and other oilseeds.
HC Finds No Fault in State’s Tender Process for Battery Sprayers, Nano Fertilisers
The GR provides for the procurement and distribution of five specific items — battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags — through state agencies.
Petitioners Lack Legal Standing, Misunderstood GR Objectives, Says Court
The bench held that no interference was warranted in the tender process executed for procuring these items, and found the allegations of inflated prices and favouritism to contractors baseless. It also noted that the petitions were filed by an association of sprayer manufacturers, who lacked the legal standing to challenge the government’s policy decision.
“To protect their private interests, manufacturers and traders cannot be allowed to obstruct a broader government scheme meant to improve crop productivity,” the court said.
GR Shift from DBT to State Procurement Defended as Strategic Move
The petitioners had argued that these five items were previously part of a 2016 GR that allowed subsidies through the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, enabling farmers to purchase products from local markets at competitive prices. They claimed the new GR, which removed these items from DBT and shifted to state procurement, resulted in inflated rates and hurt farmers’ interests.
However, senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond, representing the state, countered that the 2024 GR was issued under a new scheme with broader objectives focused on long-term productivity gains, and not just procurement. The court accepted this argument and clarified that the two GRs served entirely different purposes.
High Court: Litigation Based on Misinterpretation Hampers Farmer Welfare Initiatives
Criticising the petitioners for confusing the two unrelated schemes, the judges stated: “The petitioners have erroneously mixed up the two GRs, which operate in completely different and independent spheres.”
Holding that such baseless litigation hindered the effective implementation of government initiatives designed to benefit farmers, the court imposed a cost of Rs1 lakh while dismissing the petitions.
