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}
2731.14 wp.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2731 OF 2014
Mahakali Chandramata Magaswargiya
Maschya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha
Kalkoti, Taluka Chakur, Dist. Latur.
Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.
Respondent/s
Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.G. Shelke,
advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the Respondents.
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 2ND APRIL, 2014.
PER COURT:
1]The petitioner is taking an exception to the
order dated 1.9.2012, in respect of allotment of
fishing rights in favour of the respondent no.4
society.
2]Respondent No.4 has been allotted rights to
conduct fishing for a period of 5 years, commencing
from 1.7.2012. It is observed that during the first
year, commencing from 1.7.2012 to 31.6.2013,
respondent No.4 has exercised fishing rights on making
{2} 2731.14 wp.odt
deposit of amount of Rs.1,12,118/-, whereas, during
the second year of the allotment as per the
authorization, respondent No.4 society has commenced
activity from 1.7.2013 onwards and the year is likely
to come to an end on 30.6.2014. The respondent No.4
has already deposited amount for second year.
3]The petitioner has approached this court
taking exception to the impugned order authorizing the
respondent No.4 to conduct fishing activity, after a
lapse of more than one and half year from the date of
issuance of the order. It is the contention of the
petitioner that the claim of the petitioner society
for grant of authorization for exercising fishing
rights also ought to have been considered and the
respondents ought to have conducted auction
proceedings before issuing authorization in favour of
the respondent No.4, amongst the eligible societies.
4]Since the petitioner has approached this
court after more than one and half years of the
issuance of order, no interference is called for, at
this stage. Petition is devoid of substance and the
same accordingly stands rejected.
[A.M. BADAR][R.M. BORDE]
JUDGEJUDGE.
grt/-
Mahakali Chandramata Magaswargiya Maschya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court