Fri Jul 25 19:29:49 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a summary and a news article based on the provided text:
**Summary:**
The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra government resolution (GR) from March 2024 concerning the procurement and supply of agricultural inputs. Agri Sprayers T.I.M. Association and other petitioners argued the new GR, which replaces a direct benefit transfer (DBT) system, harms farmers by allowing state agencies to procure items at inflated prices. The court rejected this, stating the GR is distinct and aims to boost productivity in key crops. The court found the petitions baseless, motivated by the petitioners’ commercial interests, and imposed a ₹1 lakh fine.
**News Article:**
**Bombay High Court Upholds Maharashtra Agricultural Input Resolution, Fines Petitioners**
**Mumbai, July 26, 2025** – The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra government resolution (GR) regarding the procurement and supply of agricultural inputs to farmers, deeming the challenges “totally baseless.” The court has imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners.
The ruling, delivered on July 22nd and made public yesterday, involves a GR dated March 12, 2024, outlining a plan to supply farmers with items like battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags. This is intended to boost productivity for key crops like cotton, soybean, and oilseeds under a Special Action Plan.
Agri Sprayers T.I.M. Association and others filed the Public Interest Litigation, arguing that the new GR marked a shift from a 2016 GR that utilized Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT) enabling farmers to purchase inputs from local vendors. The petitioners claimed the state was now procuring these items at inflated prices, hurting manufacturers and farmers.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne, rejected these arguments. It determined that the 2024 GR was distinct from the 2016 GR, which focused on DBT subsidies, and instead aimed at a structured, state-led procurement for targeted crop improvement.
The court stated the petitioners had “no locus standi” due to their primarily commercial interests, and it accused them of attempting to frustrate the Special Action Plan to promote their own business interests. The court also noted that the filing of baseless petitions had resulted in the creation of hurdles in the effective implementation of the Special Action Plan, which is aimed at benefitting the farmers. The ₹1 lakh fine is to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks; failure to do so will result in recovery of the amount by the District Collector as arrears of land revenue.
First Piper 