Allowed

Sidheshwar Sahakari Dudh Utpadak v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2005WP/2606/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of writ petitions concerning proposed milk societies. The interim relief preventing the Assistant Registrar from setting aside their initial approval remained in force. The court directed that if the societies remain unregistered yet collect milk, their proposals must be reconsidered with weight given to past collection.

What did the court decide?

Proposal of petitioner-societies to be considered for registration after issuing notice; past milk collection to be taken into account.

Sidheshwar Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Vs State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

 WRIT PETITION NO.2605 OF 1992
 ALONGWITH
 WRIT PETITION NO.2687 OF 1992
 ALONGWITH
 WRIT PETITION NO.2606 OF 1992
 ALONGWITH

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.2688 OF 1992

¶4

 ------------------------------------:----------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
 or directions and Registrar’s :
 orders. :

¶5

 ------------------------------------:-----------------------------------

¶6

 Mr.Ranjit V.More for the petitioners.

¶7

 CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J.

¶8

 DATED: 22ND FEBRUARY, 2005.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

 . Heard Mr.More, learned counsel

¶11

 for the petitioners.

¶12

 2. In this group of writ petitions,

¶13

 all the petitioners are proposed milk
 societies, whose proposals were
 initially approved by the orders of
 Assistant Registrar and all the
 petitioners were granted permission to
 open bank account and collect milk.
 However, the orders passed by the
 Assistant Registrar were set aside by
 the Divisional Deputy Registrar,

¶14

 Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Pune
 Division, Pune in the appeals filed by
 respondent no.1. Respondent No.1 in all
 the writ petitions are also proposed
 societies which made grievance that they

¶15

 were not heard by the Assistant
 Registrar when the petitioner-societies

¶16

 were given permission to collect milk
 and open a bank account and when the
 orders were passed by the Assistant
 Registrars. In all the writ petitions
 while issuing Rule on 15.7.1992 an

¶17

 ad-interim relief in terms of prayer
 clause (c) was granted and which was
 subsequently confirmed on 15.7.1992. By
 virtue of this order the
 petitioner-societies were allowed to

¶18

 operate and collect milk. The net

¶19

 result of the interim relief that was

¶20

 granted on 15.7.1992 was that the order

¶21

 passed by the Divisional Deputy

¶22

 Registrar, remain stayed all these

¶23

 years. Mr.More, learned counsel for the

¶24

 petitioners, however, is not in a

¶25

 position to state as to what is the

¶26

 status of the petitioner-societies
 (proposed) as of today, whether they

¶27

 have been registered or not and, if not,

¶28

 whether they are still interested in
 there registration. However, if the
 petitioner-societies are still not
 registered and they are collecting milk,
 their proposals are liable to be
 considered for registration on the basis
 of the milk they have been collecting
 all these years. Respondent Nos.1 and 2
 though served chose to remain absent all
 throughout. Keeping that in view and
 considering the overall facts and
 circumstances of the case, in my
 opinion, the following order shall meet
 the ends of justice:

¶29

 . If the petitioners-societies
 (proposed) are not yet registered and

¶30

 they are still collecting milk, their
 proposal may be considered by the

¶31

 Assistant Registrar for registration
 after issuing notice and giving an

¶32

 opportunity of being heard to respondent
 nos.1 and 2 as also to any other society

¶33

 operating in that village. While

¶34

 considering the proposal of the
 petitioner-societies collection of milk,

¶35

 if any, they have been making all these
 years will be taken into consideration
 by the Assistant Registrar. All
 contentions are left open. Rule in all
 the four writ petitions is disposed of
 in aforesaid terms.

¶36

 . The writ petitions are,
 accordingly, disposed of.

¶37

(D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Sidheshwar Sahakari Dudh Utpadak v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidheshwar Sahakari Dudh Utpadak v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Balkrishna Shinde Vs Bhimrao Dharma Gade

Shashikant Shankar Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs Ramchandra Mahadeo Kshirsagar and Anr.

Suresh Eknath Kulkarni Vs Pandharinath Shankarrao Kulkarni

Vasantdada Patil Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Va Puravtha Vs Jai Malhar Dudh Utpadak Va Puravtha Sanstha and Ors.

Balwant @ Balkrishna Dattatraya Mane Vs Anandrao Balkrishna Mane and Ors.

Hanuman Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Vs Shri Shivajirao Shenge and Ors.