Dismissed

Kishor M. Kothari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2007APPW/216/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an application seeking restoration of a writ petition that was dismissed for default. The petition concerned membership in a chemists' association and trade practice grievances. The court held restoration would serve no purpose as the association is not 'State' under Article 12 and alleged grievances involve disputed facts requiring civil adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; Writ Petition not restored.

Kishor M. Kothari Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 APPLICATION NO.216 OF 2007
 IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.894 OF 2007

¶4

 Mr.Kishore M.Kothari ...Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 State of Maharashtra
 and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

 ...
 Mr.R.J.Nodge i/b R.N.Kachave Advocate for
 Petitioner
 Mr.A.S.Gadkari APP for State

¶8

 CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶9

 DATE : AUGUST 09, 2007

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 1. This is an application for restoration of Writ
 Petition No.894 of 2007 which was dismissed for
 default on 6th June, 2007. Application discloses
 that the Advocate for the Petitioner was not aware
 of the fact that the matter was kept for hearing on
 the day when it was dismissed and on account of the
 fact that the date of hearing was not noticed by
 the Advocate for the Petitioner he remained absent
 when the matter was called out. Considering this

¶12

 - 2 -

¶13

 fact, we would have been certainly inclined to

¶14

 allow the application and to restore the Writ
 Petition No.894 of 2007. However, perusal of the
 Writ Petition No.894 of 2007 discloses that the
 same is a petition seeking relief in the nature of
 writ of mandamus to the Respondent No.5 to admit
 the membership of the Navi Mumbai Retail Chemists
 and Welfare Association and further for directions
 to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 for enquiry of the
 Respondent No.5 and the said Association in

¶15

 relation to alleged violation of certain trade
 practices, as well as for directions to Respondent
 No.5 to pay damages to the Petitioner in respect of
 alleged mental agony and business loss to the
 Petitioner due to alleged negligence of the duty of
 the Respondents.

¶16

 2. Apparently, petition is primarily for
 directions to Respondent No.5 to admit the
 Petitioner as member of the Association. The
 question of any writ to be issued to Respondent
 No.5 does not at all arise as the Respondent No.5
 is not the ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12
 of the Constitution of India and therefore, no
 petition could be maintainable for issuance of writ

¶17

 - 3 -

¶18

 to the Respondent No.5.

¶19

 3. As regards the grievance regarding the

¶20

 irregularities in trade practice and alleged mental

¶21

 agony and business loss to the Petitioner,

¶22

 certainly the matter would involve disputed
 questions of facts which would require proper
 adjudication before the appropriate forum and in
 that regard, alternate efficacious remedies are
 available to the Petitioner and hence, question of
 entertaining Writ Petition in that regard cannot
 arise.

¶23

 4. For the reasons stated above, there is

¶24

 absolutely no case for entertaining the Writ

¶25

 Petition and for the same reason no purpose would

¶26

 be served by restoring the said Writ Petition by
 allowing the present application. In the
 circumstances, therefore, the application is

¶27

 rejected.

¶28

 [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.]

¶29

 - 4 -

¶30

 [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Kishor M. Kothari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor M. Kothari 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Ramchandra Tayade Vs P.V.R. Reddy and Anr.

Sanjiv Goel Vs Asst. Director of Enforcement and Ors.

Sachin Hindurao Waze Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Vikram Dande and Anr. Vs Mukhtar Mahamud Shaikh and Ors.

Waman Raghunath Shelke Vs the Superintendant and Ors.

Anil R. Surolia Vs Nakulan S. Panicker and Ors.