JUDGMENT - SAMBRE W.M., J.:—Heard parties. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner claims that he is a Broker and therefore the Award passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Narkhed, dated 15-1-1990 holding him to be a Commission Agent is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was given a licence as an Adtiya by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (A.P.M.C.), Narkhed, on his application dated 24-9-1988. The petitioner gave an undertaking that he will abide by the Rules and Regulations of the A.P.M.C. The licence was issued to him under Rule 6(2) of the A.P.M.C. (Regulation) Rules, 1967, wherein the conditions for working as Adtiya have been prescribed. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Broker/Dalal and has nothing to do with the designation of Adtiya/Commission Agent. On the complaint made by the agriculturists/horticulturists, the respondent-A.P.M.C. passed a resolution authorising the Secretary to file a dispute under section 57 of the A.P.M.C. (Regulation) Act, 1963. Accordingly a dispute was raised and the Secretary of the A.P.M.C. represented the A.P.M.C. before the Authorised Officer. An Award came to be passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Narkhed, on 15-1-1990 holding the petitioner liable to pay to 16 agriculturists through the Secretary of the A.P.M.C., Narkhed, an amount of Rs. 22,342/-. This Award passed is under challenge in this petition. 5. It is contended that the petitioner being a Broker is entitled only for commission. The petitioner as a Broker has to approach to the businessmen for sale of goods of the agriculturists convincing the businessmen about the quality of material and fetch the maximum price from the businessmen for the agriculturists. He is supposed to get the price of the goods from the businessmen and thereafter after deducting his commission has to pay to the agriculturists. In the petitioner itself the petitioner himself was represented to be a Broker and further stated that he is getting the commission and therefore he was not liable to pay the price directly to the agriculturist without recovering the same from the businessmen who are the purchaser of the goods. In fact the dispute was required to be filed against the businessmen. In fact the dispute was required to be filed against the businessmen. The businessmen have not been made party to the present dispute under section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act and therefore he was not under obligation to pay the purchased price to the agriculturists on his own. Petitioner contended that he has placed on record the resolution passed by the respondent No. 1-A.P.M.C. at Annexure-2 and the copy of the dispute filed under section 57 of A.P.M.C. Act at Annexure-I. The copy of the written statement before the Assistant Registrar is at Annexure-3 wherein the petitioner has stated that the actual purchaser is the businessman and the businessman has to pay the amount and it is the duty of the businessmen to pay the purchased price through this Broker to the agriculturists. It is also stated that he received part payment which has been paid by him to the agriculturists while the outstanding amount due is to be recovered from the businessmen and the entry to that effect in the bill has been communicated to the A.P.M.C. Therefore the petitioner is not responsible or liable to pay the balance amount to the agriculturists. Moreover, the businessmen have not been joined as a party and for non-joinder of the party the dispute is liable to be dismissed. Annexure-4 gives the detail about the outstanding of the agriculturists to be recovered from the petitioner. 6. From the above facts it will be seen that the petitioner is mainly challenging the Award on the ground that he being the Broker and not the Commission Agent is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount as per the Award. He further contended that in fact there is no claim made by the agriculturists nor the dispute has been filed by the agriculturists and therefore the resolution passed by the A.P.M.C. to file the dispute under section 57 of A.P.M.C. Act through its secretary is invalid. The next point raised by the petitioner is that he has not been afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence to put forth his case. On these grounds, the petitioner contended that the Award passed by the Assistant Registrar under no circumstances can be sustained. 7. The next point raised by the petitioner is that he has not been afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence to put forth his case. On these grounds, the petitioner contended that the Award passed by the Assistant Registrar under no circumstances can be sustained. 7. After going through the Award passed as well as the resolution of the A.P.M.C. we are not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner is a licensee as an Adtiya and not as a Broker. The word Broker has been defined in section 2(c) of the A.P.M.C. Act, 1963 which reads as under— 'broker” means an agent who contrives, makes and concludes a bargain or ,contracts on behalf of his principal for the purchase or sale of agricultural produce for which he receives a fee or remuneration, but does not receive deliver transport, or pay for the purchase, or collect payment for the sale of the agricultural produce.” While Commission Agent has been defined under section 2(e) of the A.P.M.C. Act which reads as follows— “ 'commission agent' means a person who by himself or through his servants buys and sells agricultural produce for another person, keeps his custody and controls it in during the process of its sale or purchase, and collects payment therefore from the buyer and pays it to the seller, and receives by way of remuneration a commission or percentage upon the amount involved in each transaction.” The licence issued to the petitioner under Rule 6(2) is for an Adtiya, i.e. commission agent. Commission agent has been defined in Marathi as Adtiya while broker has been defined in Marathi as Dalal. Broker is different than commission agent which can be seen from the definitions of Commission Agent and Broker. A broker cannot be a commission agent while a commission agent cannot be a broker. The two identities are different, their jobs are different, their assignments are different and their responsibility is also different. Petitioner claims that he is a broker and works on commission. This cannot be a correct position. Broker as per definition has to be an agent between the seller and purchaser. Broker is a dalal and he gets brokerage/dalali. The two identities are different, their jobs are different, their assignments are different and their responsibility is also different. Petitioner claims that he is a broker and works on commission. This cannot be a correct position. Broker as per definition has to be an agent between the seller and purchaser. Broker is a dalal and he gets brokerage/dalali. While commission agent is a person who by himself or through his servants buys and sells agricultural produce for another person, keeps it in his custody and controls it during the process of its sale or purchase, and collects payment therefore from the buyer and pays it to the seller, and receives by way of remuneration a commission or percentage upon the amount involved in each transaction. This discloses that the commission agent is a person who purchases the agricultural produce for another person and is having a control over the said agricultural produce and he can retain it in his custody and control during the process of its sale or purchase. This clearly defines the responsibility of a commission agent and his control over the agricultural produce. While broker/dalalis a person who is an intermediator to introduce seller and purchaser to each other and gets a brokerage/dalali. He is not having any control over the agricultural produce nor does he get the sell price except his brokerage, nor does he receive, deliver, transport, or pay for the purchase, or collect payment for the sale of the agricultural produce. This shows that the broker has no lien over the agricultural produce and therefore he cannot recover the price of the agricultural produce sold to the buyers and the price is required to be paid directly to the seller. Thus the two different entities having two different duties and responsibility cast upon clearly speaks that broker and commission agent are different from each other. Therefore the claim of the petitioner that he is a broker and receives commission under no circumstances can be accepted. 8. The licence issued in favour of the petitioner is that of a commission agent/Adtiya for the year 1988-89. This further clarifies the position of the petitioner that he is not a broker/dalal but is a commission agent/ adtiya and the duty cast upon him is to deduct his commission or percentage and pay the price of the agricultural produce to the agriculturists. This further clarifies the position of the petitioner that he is not a broker/dalal but is a commission agent/ adtiya and the duty cast upon him is to deduct his commission or percentage and pay the price of the agricultural produce to the agriculturists. The commission agent is authorised to buy or sell the agricultural produce for another person and keep in his custody and control during the process of its sale or purchase and collect the amount therefore from the buyer and pay it to the seller. This shows that the commission agent is having its independent existence and has a right to keep the custody of the agricultural produce and is also having control over the sale and purchase of the said property. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is a broker and in fact it was obligatory on the part of the A.P.M.C. to join the businessmen as a party to the dispute filed under section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act under no circumstances can be sustained. Even on the basis of the conditions laid down in the licence, the petitioner who has been designated as adtiya/commission agent is obliged to pay the price of the agricultural produce purchased or sold through him on the very day. Considering these facts and even the definition given in the Marathi version of A.P.M.C. Act, 1963, it is clear that the commission agent is a person who is having control over the property purchased and he can keep the said agricultural produce in his custody and will be under obligation to pay the cost of the agricultural produce to the seller on the very day. His contention that the amount was not paid by the businessmen and therefore the balance amount could not be paid by him to the agriculturists cannot be a ground to withhold the payment of the agriculturist. 9. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has paid substantial amount to the agriculturists leaving the balance of Rs. 24,630/-. He again paid certain amount to the agriculturists again leaving a balance of Rs. 22,342/- which he does not dispute. Petitioner's only contention is that the businessmen did not pay the amount to him and therefore he could not pay the said amount to the agriculturists. This cannot be an excuse for non-payment to the agriculturists. 24,630/-. He again paid certain amount to the agriculturists again leaving a balance of Rs. 22,342/- which he does not dispute. Petitioner's only contention is that the businessmen did not pay the amount to him and therefore he could not pay the said amount to the agriculturists. This cannot be an excuse for non-payment to the agriculturists. Therefore, the dispute filed under section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act by the A.P.M.C. through its Secretary is perfectly right. The A.P.M.C. was not under obligation to join the businessmen as a party to the said dispute. Considering the accepted liability, in view of the above discussion, the petitioner is under obligation to pay the balance amount to all the agriculturists. 10. Our attention was invited by both the sides to a decision of this Court reported in (Pralhad Eknath Fulkari v. Ramakrishna Tukaramji Dhage)1, 1986(2) Bom.C.R. 516 : 1985 Mh.L.J. 971. The ratio of 'the said decision is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act. We have no quarrel with the aforesaid decision and, therefore, this petition has been entertained by this Court. 11. In view of the above discussion, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. -----