Bombay High Court: Shivajirao Hude's APMC Disqualification Sent for Review

Summary: Shivajirao Hude was disqualified from his position as Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) in Udgir. The case revolves around whether his main income was from farming, a requirement for his role. The court has sent the case back for further review.

The Case of Shivajirao Hude

Shivajirao Hude, aged 58, was disqualified from his role as Chairman and member of the APMC in Udgir. The disqualification was based on rules stating that a member's main income must come from farming. The authorities claimed Hude's income wasn't primarily from farming.

Arguments and Disqualifications

The main debate was about who had the power to disqualify Shivajirao Hude. His lawyer argued that the District Deputy Registrar didn't have the authority to decide on his disqualification under Rule 10 (2) of the 2017 Rules. They believed only the Director should make such decisions.

"The District Deputy Registrar has no power to decide disqualification incurred under Rule 10 (2)," argued Hude's lawyer.

The Role of Notifications

A notification from 2020 was a key point. It gave the District Deputy Registrar the Director's powers, but Shivajirao Hude's lawyer argued that this didn't include decisions under Rule 10 (2). However, the court found that the District Deputy Registrar could indeed decide on these issues.

Issues and Income Sources

The authorities claimed Shivajirao Hude was involved with non-farming businesses like Sachin Proteins Ltd. and that his income was not mainly from farming. They used his tax returns from 2020-2023 to support this claim.

The court noted, "The petitioner’s income is substantial from non-agricultural sources."

Court's Decision and Next Steps

The court found that Shivajirao Hude hadn't been given a fair chance to respond to the claims about his involvement with Sachin Proteins Ltd. The case was sent back to the District Deputy Registrar for a fresh decision, focusing on whether Hude's main income was non-agricultural.

Summary of the Verdict

The court decided to cancel the earlier orders and sent the case back for a new decision to be made within two months. This decision highlights the need for clear evidence and proper communication in deciding who can hold public positions.