Disposed

Bharat Kisan Palve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2015WP/1116/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of Maharashtra Ordinance No. 1 of 2008. The court observed that the Ordinance has ceased to be in force and the relief sought regarding nomination for a market committee election covering 2007 to 2012 no longer survives, resulting in the disposal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged. No costs.

Bharat Kisan Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp1116.08

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1116 OF 2008

¶6

Bharat s/o Kisan Palve,
Age-32 years, Occu:Agriculture,
R/o-Kolhar, Tq-Pathardi,
Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Agriculture Produce and Marketing
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
and others.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

 ...
 Mr. V.D. Hon Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
 ...

¶12

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2015

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

1.The Writ Petition assails the Ordinance i.e.

¶16

Maharashtra Ordinance No.1 of 2008 issued in
furtherance to amend the Maharashtra Agricultural
Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation)

¶17

wp1116.08

¶18

¶19

Act, 1963 and to hold that the Ordinance is bad,
void in law and unconstitutional.

¶20

2.We have heard learned counsel for the

¶21

Petitioner. Learned A.G.P. states that life of the
Ordinance is only for six months and the Ordinance
is not surviving today. It would culminate into an
Enactment.

¶22

3.The challenge was to the Ordinance and seeking

¶23

directions to accept nomination form of the
Petitioner for the election of the Agricultural
Produce Market Committee, Pathardi. The same was
for the period 2007 to 2012. With the passage of

¶24

time the said relief does not survive. Even the
Ordinance would not be in force today. If the
Petitioner chooses, is at liberty to challenge the
provisions of the statute. Writ Petition, as such,
stands disposed of. Rule discharged. No costs.

¶25

[A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
asb/MAR15

Bharat Kisan Palve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Kisan Palve 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

Sunita Rajesh Baheti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajashri Shahu Trust and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ramesh Narayandas Karva Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Maharashtra Rajya Vratpatra Sampadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rukmin Anil Kavadewar Vs the State Election Commission and Ors.

Kalawatibai Papanna Karkhelikar Vs the State Election Commission and Ors.