Court observed that civil proceedings regarding the allotment of galas were pending and held that the Court should not express any opinion on the disputed questions. No extraordinary jurisdiction was exercised.
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
6)WP6318.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 6318 OF 2014
Ramdas Babanrao Pavale
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents
Mr. Kiran A. Nikara, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas A. Mali, AGP for the State Mr. N. N. Bhadrashete, Advocate for R. No. 2,3,7 & 8. Mr. P. J. Thorat, Advocate for R. Nos. 5 & 6.
CORAM:-NARESH H. PATIL & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATED : -20/03/2015
P.C.
Heard.
2 The petitioner challenges the order passed by the
Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture and Marketing on 27/9/2013 in Appeal N. 36 of 2013. The appeal was filed by respondent No. 6 Shankar Laxman Pingale, against the order of disqualification under Rule 41(1)(h)(i) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation)
1/4
2
6)WP6318.14
Rules 1967.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No 6 misused his position in getting two galas alloted in favour of respondent No. 5. In spite of cancellation of allotment of galas by respondent No. 2-APMC, respondent No. 6 continue to hold the possession. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is one of the allottees of the galas. It is also admitted that the proceedings for disqualification were not initiated by the petitioner but by one Ashok Ankush Gavade.
4 The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 submitted that a civil suit was already filed and pending, instituted by the respondent No. 5 against the order passed by the APMC cancelling allotment of galas in favour of respondent No. 5. The counsel submits that APMC did not challenge the order of the Hon'ble Minister allowing the appeal exonerating respondent No. 6 from the allegation/charges
2/4
3
6)WP6318.14
levelled against him. The petitioner has, therefore, no locus to raise these issues here.
5 The learned counsel appearing for APMC submits that based on the record APMC took a decision of cancellation of allotment of galas. In case the person has grievance, he may approach the appropriate forum. The APMC would take its stand in, such alternate appropriate forum as advised.
6 We have perused the record and the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. We have considered the submissions.
7 The petitioner who was allotted one of the galas had raised issues in respect of allotment of galas in respect of respondent No. 5. Civil proceedings are already initiated in respect of the allotment of galas. It is submitted by the learned counsel that civil suit is still pending. The petitioner has not challenged the order of the Hon'ble Minister. We are of the prima facie view that the petitioner has any locus to challenge the order of the Hon'ble Minister in this regard.
3/4
4
6)WP6318.14
8 In view of the fact that the disputed questions
raised in the petition are in respect of allotment of the galas, we
do not express any opinion on the same. In the facts of the
case, we do not find any reason for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
9 The petition is dismissed.
(V. L. ACHLIYA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
md.saleem
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the order of the Minister exononerating respondent No. 6
Whether the Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in matters regarding allotment of galas where civil proceedings are pending
Ramdas Babanrao Pavale
The State of Maharashtra
NARESH H. PATIL
V. L. ACHLIYA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
