Dismissed

Nandabodhi Magas Vargiya Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Apr 2013WP/1080/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a ministerial order, restored a revision to its original file, and directed the Minister to hear two revisions together. The court fixed a timeline for decision and precluded unnecessary adjournments, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; revision restored; directed to hear two revisions together and decide within eight weeks.

Nandabodhi Magas Vargiya Grahak Sahakari Sanstha… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp1080.13

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1080 OF 2013

¶5

Nandabodhi Magas Vargiya Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr. P.S. Dighe, advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, advocate for respondent No.5

¶11

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 16^th APRIL, 2013

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 23.1.2013

¶15

passed by respondent No.2, the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶16

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5,

¶17

on instructions of his client, makes a statement that, revision filed by

¶18

respondent No.5 is pending before the Minister challenging the

¶19

wp1080.13 -2-

¶20

judgment and order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. He submits that he has instructions to make a statement before this Court that the impugned order can be set aside and the revision No. VAM-1012/ P.K. 236/N.P. 21 may be restored to its original file and revision filed by respondent No.5 may be heard together by the Minister and then the Minister to take decision on merits. Statement of counsel appearing for respondent No.5 is accepted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned A.G.P. Counsel submits that instead of entering into the merits, the parties may be relegated before the revisional authority and revisional authority may be directed to decide both the revisions by giving common hearing. In the light of the above, following order is passed:-

¶21

I. Impugned order dated 23.1.2013 passed by respondent No.2 allowing revision No. VAM-1012/ P.K. 236/N.P. 21 is quashed and set aside and the said revision is restored to its original file.

¶22

II. Respondent No.2 is directed to hear the said revision and revision arising out of the judgment and order dated 17.4.2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, filed by the petitioner herein. Respondent No.2 to hear both the revisions together and after allowing the parties to contest the matters on merits, decide the same on merits.

¶23

wp1080.13

¶24

-3-

¶25

III. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide both the revisions within eight weeks from 3.5.2013.

¶26

IV. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, on instructions, agreed that the petitioner and respondent No.5 will appear before respondent No.2 on 3.5.2013.

¶27

V. Once the revisions are fixed for hearing by respondent No.2, the revisional authority should not entertain any prayer for adjournment, unless there exists extra ordinary circumstance for granting such adjournment. Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 5, on instructions, submit that they will extend full co-operation to respondent No.2.

¶28

VI. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

( S. S. SHINDE, J. )

¶30

rlj/

Nandabodhi Magas Vargiya Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandabodhi Magas Vargiya Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Usman Shaikh Mahboob Vs Syed Abid Syed Hussain and Ors.

Gopal Motilal Baheti Vs Ratanbai Laxminarayan Jaju and Ors.

Ramesh Raghunath Komatwar and Anr. Vs Jubedabegum Abdul Kadar Kazi Thr. Spl. P.A. Jilani Jainuddin Khatik

Bilkis Begum Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Died Thr. L.R. Sayyada Tayabba Fatima Thr. Gpa Shaikh Mohd. Khaled Vs Mannalal Hiralal Agrawal, Died Thr. L.Rs. Suryakalabai and Ors.

Raju Hanumantrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Manohar Dhondiba Patil and Anr.

Shridhar Shahaji Gadhekar, L.Rs. Radhabai Motiram Raut and Others Vs the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division and Others