In a PIL regarding the discontinuation of an industrial activity at Aarey Milk Colony, the Court directed the State Government to take follow-up action based on a previous affidavit concerning the termination of a prior entity's functioning and the licence held by the current allottee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
(PIL) WRIT PETITION NO.113 OF 2006
Mumbai General Employees
Association. .. .. Petitioner
v/s.
State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Susheel Mahadeshwar i/by Ranjana Todankar for
petitioner.
Mr.K.R.Belosey, GP for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4.
Mr.M.M.Vashi for respondent No.7.
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : 23rd January 2007
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Mahadeshwar in support of this
Petition. Mr.Belosey, Government Pleader appears
for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Mr.Vashi for
respondent No.7. The other respondents and
particularly respondent No.2, though served, are
not present.
2. This Petition is filed by an Association
of Employees. This Association represents the
employees working under respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 was running its activities in the
Aarey Milk Colony at Goregaon from 1976. Suddenly
its functioning was discontinued and a permission
appears to have been given to respondent No.7.
-2-
This was concerning a Centre known as Biotic
Centre. The main activity of the said Centre was
to improve the progeny of cattle. One Petition
was earlier filed by the petitioner-Association
being Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2731 of 2004.
The Joint Director of Industries filed an
Affidavit in that proceedings on 6th April 2005 in
which it was mentioned that the termination of the
functioning of respondent No.2 was bad and was not
in consonance with the agreement governing their
functioning.
3. The present Petition prays for the
cancellation of the licence issued to respondent
No.7.
4. Mr.Mahadeshwar, learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner, however, stated on the last
date that if the State Government i.e. respondent
No.1 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 take appropriate
steps to retrieve the premises allotted to
respondent No.7, the petitioner would be
satisfied.
5. In view of this statement made by
Mr.Mahadeshwar, we had asked Mr.Belosey,
Government Pleader on the last date as to whether
-3-
the Government will take necessary follow-up
action in view of Government’s Affidavit filed in
the earlier Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2731 of
2004. On the request of Mr.Belosey, the matter
was adjourned to today’s date to take
instructions. Mr.Belosey states that he is
leaving it to the Court to pass appropriate
orders.
6. This being the position, it is clear that
the Government has taken a stand on this
controversy. In the earlier Writ Petition, an
Affidavit has been specifically filed in that
regard. All that we expect is that the Government
must take the follow-up action. We accordingly
direct the Government and its officers to take the
follow-up action in continuation to the Affidavit
that they have filed in the earlier Writ
Petition.
7. Petition disposed of with the above order.
(ACTING C.J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State Government should take follow-up action regarding the termination of the petitioner's predecessor activity and the licence of the current allottee.
Whether the petitioner's request for cancellation of the respondent's licence can be met by the Government retrieving the premises.
Mumbai General Employees Association
State of Maharashtra
H.L. Gokhale
V.M. Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court