Disposed

Gangadhar Nivrutti Kashmire v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jul 2009WP/5202/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging arbitrary reduction of kerosene quota at a fair price shop. Instead of deciding merits, the Court fixed a timeline for parties to submit representations to the Additional Collector to decide the grievance. No legal principle was laid down.

What did the court decide?

Directed Additional Collector, Nashik to decide petitioner's representation after hearing parties within 15th November 2009.

Gangadhar Nivrutti Kashmire Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5202 OF 2008

¶2

Gangadhar Nivrutti Kashire

¶3

......Petitioner

¶4

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶6

...... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Madhav J. Jamdar for the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. R.P. Behare, AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 4

¶9

Mr. P.V. Nichani with Mfr. Dilip Shukla for respondent No.5

¶10

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 27TH JULY, 2009.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 The petitioner has a licensed fair price shop at Wadala Gaon, Taluka and District Nashik. The basic grievance made by the petitioner in this petition is that the respondents arbitrarily reduced the quota of kerosene allotted to him. It is his case that the reduction is done to favour respondent No. 5. The petitioner has prayed that the order directing the reduction of quota be quashed and set aside.

¶13

2 We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and learned Counsel for the 5^th respondent and learned AGP Mr. Behare. Mr. Laxman N. Patil, Distribution Officer, is present in the Court. We feel that the petitioner’s grievance needs to be examined by the respondents. Learned AGP Mr. Behare, on instructions from Mr. Laxman N. Patil, who is present in the Court states that without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, the present arrangement will continue till 15^th November, 2009 and on or before 15^th November, 2009 the Additional Collector, Nashik will decide the petitioner’s representation, if any submitted to him after hearing respondent No.5.

¶14

3 Mr. Jamdar, leaned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will file a detailed representation to which he will annex a copy of the present petition. Learned Counsel for the 5^th respondent states that since the 5th respondent has not filed a reply to the present petition, he will submit his reply to the present writ petition and his reply to new representation which may be made by the petitioner to the Additional Collector, Nashik.

¶15

4 In view of the above, in our opinion following order will meet the ends of justice.

¶16

(a) Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, present arrangement as regards quota shall continue till 15^th November, 2009.

¶17

(b) The petitioner shall file representation addressed to the Additional Collector, Nashik setting out his grievance within 15 days from

¶18

today. To the representation he shall annex a copy of the present petition. He shall serve a copy thereof on the 5^th respondent within 15 days from the date of filing of his representation.

¶19

(c) The 5^th Respondent will be at liberty to submit his reply to the present petition as well as reply to the new representation of the petitioner. He shall do so within 15 days from the receipt of the petitioner's representation. The 5th Respondent shall serve a copy of his reply on the petitioner within 15 days from the receipt of copy of the petitioner's representation.

¶20

(d) After receipt of the 5^th respondent’s reply, the Additional Collector shall pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent and the Distribution Officer, by 15^th November, 2009. Needless to say that the order passed by him shall be communicated to the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent.

¶21

(e) We note the presence of the petitioner, and the 5^th respondent in our Court today.

¶22

(f) We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either parties.

¶23

5 Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶25

A.A. SAYED J.

Gangadhar Nivrutti Kashmire v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhar Nivrutti Kashmire v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadashiv Daji Aradhi Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Moreshwar S/O. Sitaramji Raut Vs the Honourable Principal District and Sessions Judge and Ors.

Kumar Hirgappa Koli Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shantilal Misrilal Kankaria Vs the Municipal Commissioner - Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sitaram Baban Shinde and Ors. Vs the Additional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Raghunath Rama Pattade and Ors. Vs the Collector - Kolhapur and Ors.