SATYA SHODHAK SAMAJ SANGH THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE MEMBER VISHWASRAO BHASKARRAO PATIL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS — PIL/88/2024

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227,14AND21. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030437512024

Filing Number

PIL/31301/2024

Filing Date

13-Nov-2024

Registration No

PIL/88/2024

Registration Date

19-Nov-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar

Coram

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar

Bench Type

Division

Category

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION/LETTER PETITIONS ( 32 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,227,14AND21
Public Interest Litigation

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATYA SHODHAK SAMAJ SANGH THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE MEMBER VISHWASRAO BHASKARRAO PATIL

    Adv. Thorat Mohanish V

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS

    Adv. AGP For R.nos. 1 to 3 and 5. 1123

  2. 2.FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT

  3. 3.THE COMMISSIONER AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE

  4. 4.THE JOINT DIRECTOR MAHARASHTRA STATE AGRICULTURAL PRICES COMMISSION

  5. 5.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR JALGAON

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi,hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. KadethankarView PDF

    Case Summary: PIL 88/2024 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the petition with partial relief, directing strict implementation of the 2015 Government Resolution and requiring the State Agriculture Commission to meticulously calculate price differences between Central and State MSP, making recommendations accordingly. However, the court rejected the petitioner's demand for direct compensation of price differences to farmers, noting that Clause 17 of the 2015 Resolution is merely advisory and does not create a statutory obligation for payment. Key Reasoning: MSP fixation is a Central Government policy function, and the 10-15% variance between State-recommended and Central-declared prices is justified by varying agricultural, climatic, and geographical conditions across India. The court emphasized that without arraying the Union of India as a party, it could not impose binding directives on national MSP policy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Dec-2025

    —

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar

  4. 21-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi,hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. VenegavkarView PDF

  5. 21-Nov-2025

    Petitions For Admission - Fresh CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  6. 26-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. KhobragadeView PDF

  7. 26-Sep-2025

    Petitions For Admission - Fresh CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  8. 05-Mar-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil,hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  9. 05-Mar-2025

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil , Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  10. 05-Feb-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil,hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  11. 05-Feb-2025

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil , Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  12. 15-Jan-2025

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil , Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  13. 28-Nov-2024

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil , Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  14. 21-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 13-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. PIL/88/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: PIL 88/2024 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the petition with partial relief, directing strict implementation of the 2015 Government Resolution and requiring the State Agriculture Commission to meticulously calculate price differences between Central and State MSP, making recommendations accordingly. However, the court rejected the petitioner's demand for direct compensation of price differences to farmers, noting that Clause 17 of the 2015 Resolution is merely advisory and does not create a statutory obligation for payment. Key Reasoning: MSP fixation is a Central Government policy function, and the 10-15% variance between State-recommended and Central-declared prices is justified by varying agricultural, climatic, and geographical conditions across India. The court emphasized that without arraying the Union of India as a party, it could not impose binding directives on national MSP policy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case