Division Bench disposed of a PIL challenging the appointment of an administrator and the notification for Market Committee elections. The court held that apprehensions regarding the administrative committee were premature and declined interference under Article 226.
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 PIL 45 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Public Interest Litigation No.45 of 2012 With Civil Application No.7041 of 2012 And Civil Application No.9916 of 2012
Sanjay s/o. Tukaram Autade And Another.
.. Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.
Shri. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate, holding for Shri. Hrishikesh Joshi, Advocate, for petitioners. Shri. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5. Shri. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Shri. S.V. Adwant, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE: 6th SEPTEMBER 2012 PER COURT :
2 PIL 45 of 2012
respondent No.3. The learned counsel has placed reliance on an order dated 29th April 2009 passed by a Division Bench at the Principal Seat of Bombay High Court in P.I.L. No.85 of 2008 (Exhibit “B” to the petition). It is submitted that, the elections shall be held to constitute managing committee of the APMC which would be in the best interest of the Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a serious apprehension that the State Government is planning to appoint a three-member committee which is based on political considerations rather than administrative convenience.
3 PIL 45 of 2012
“14. Election and term of office of members.--
(1) .......
(2) .......
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the members of a Market Committee (not being a Committee constituted for the first time) shall hold office for a period of five years,and the members of a Committee constituted for the first time shall hold office for a period of two years.
Provided that, the Market Committee constituted for the fist time, may be replaced by the Government and the new Committee so replaced shall hold office for the remainder of the period;
Provided further that, where the general election of members of a Committee could not be held for reasons beyond the control of the Committee before expiry of the term of office of its members as aforesaid, the State Government may,
4 PIL 45 of 2012
by order in the Official Gazette , extend from time to time, the term of office of any such Committee, so however, that the period for which the term of office is so extended shall not exceed the period of one year in the aggregate.”
Sd/- Sd/- (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to set aside the notification dated 18-2-2012 and direct elections for the Market Committee.
Whether the appointment of a retired officer as Administrator warrants interference under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Reported in 1 PIL 45 of 2012 (referenced in Exhibit B)Referred¶12
Public Interest Litigation No.85 of 2008
Decision by Division Bench (Coram: Naresh H Patil & S.V. Gangapurwala, JJ.)Referred¶15
Writ Petition No.11323 of 2010
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay s/o. Tukaram Autade
The State of Maharashtra
NARESH H PATIL
M.T. JOSHI
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
