Partly allowed

Southern Agro Engine Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. v. Commissioner of Agriculture, Directorate of Agriculture, and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2012WP/1180/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted liberty to the Petitioner Company to file a representation before the State Government against its blacklisting order for supplying faulty agricultural pumps. The Court directed the State to decide the representation within four weeks and held that the blacklisting order cannot impede this process before filing.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file representation within two weeks; State directed to decide within four weeks; impugned order held not to obstruct consideration of representation.

Southern Agro Engine Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

16.wp-1180-11.doc

¶2

jdk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1180 OF 2011

¶4

Southern Agro Engine Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Commissioner of Agriculture, Directorate of Agriculture, M.S. Pune and Ors.

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. S.P. Thorat i/b Kiran Thorat for Petitioners Mr. V.S. Gokhale AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶9

CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J.

¶10

DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2012.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Thorat, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 31.7.2010 issued by the State of Maharashtra, whereby the Petitioner-Company came to be black listed for supplying eight faulty petro kerosene pumps out of 9268 pumps to the farmers. The Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Petitioners have also repaired five faulty petro kerosene pumps and three were replaced. The Counsel for

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

16.wp-1180-11.doc

¶16

the Petitioners has submitted that it is, in these circumstances, Petitioners seek permission to file a representation before the State Government for redressal of their grievance, within a period of two weeks and prayed that direction be given to the State Government to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶17

3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director (Plant Protection) Commissionerate of Agricultural Maharashtra State, Pune dated 29.3.2011. Relevant portion of paragraph 6 of the said affidavit reads thus:

¶18

“It is also submitted that the Government Resolution dated 31.7.2010 which is on page nos. 124 to 127 Exh. L to the petition, the Petitioner has supplied faulty agricultural implements to the farmers of Vidarbha region and though subsequently the Petitioners have repaired the said equipments / replaced the same, it became evident from this that the petitioner has accepted the fact about the faulty supply of agricultural equipments”.

¶19

4. In the normal course, we would not have granted such

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

16.wp-1180-11.doc

¶22

liberty to the Petitioners however, in view of the above referred facts, we grant liberty to the Petitioners to make a representation to the State Government against the impugned order dated 31.7.2010 within a period of two weeks from today. If the said representation is made within the stipulated period, the State Government should decide the same in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The impugned order dated 31.7.2010 shall not come in the way of the State Government to consider the representation and decide the same.

¶23

5. Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶24

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

¶25

kandarkar

¶26

3 of 3

Southern Agro Engine Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. v. Commissioner of Agriculture, Directorate of Agriculture, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Southern Agro Engine Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. v. Commissioner of Agriculture, Directorate of Agriculture, 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

Sou. Vibhavari Dhannjay Kulkarni Vs the President, District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli and Ors.

M/S. Shah Promotors and Developers Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary of Ministry of Urben Development Dept.

Ramesh Krishna Nerkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector Nashik and Ors.

M/S. Win N Quiz Company Limited Vs the Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Internation Business Branch and Ors.

Pravin Ratansi Vikmani and Ors. Vs the Ambernath Municipal Council Tal.Ambernath, Dist. Thane, through Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Mr. Nikhil R. Makhecha and Ors. Vs the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Worli, Mumbai