Disposed

The Indian Chamber of Agriculture through President Shri Shivnath B. Horse v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Co-Op., Marketing and Textile Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Oct 2016PIL/100/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged deductions of charges from farmers' sale proceeds. Due to vague allegations despite a new Ordinance shifting burden to purchasers, the Court permitted withdrawal of the PIL and ordered disposal.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were permitted to withdraw the PIL and made a liberty to approach the Court if still aggrieved.

The Indian Chamber of Agriculture through President… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PIL 100-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 100 OF 2016

¶4

The Indian Chamber of Agriculture V/s

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Akshay Deshmukh for the petitioners. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Government Pleader with Mr. N.C. Walimbe, A.G.P. for the State.

¶9

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.

¶10

DATE : 21^ST OCTOBER 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The petitioners have come before this Court complaining deduction of certain amount from the sale proceeds of the agriculturists by the Market Committee Authority which ought not to have been collected from the agriculturists, since the very purpose of setting up of Agricultural Produce Market Committee is for the benefit of the agriculturists.

¶13

The State Government has come out with an Ordinance dated 30^th August 2016 wherein, according to the learned Government Pleader, the burden of charges which were hitherto deducted from the sale amount to be paid to the farmers will be

1 of 2

ABS

PIL 100-2016

passed on to the purchaser, therefore the farmers need not pay these charges any more.

¶18

According to the petitioners' counsel, in spite of this Ordinance, certain charges are still being deducted. However, he is not clear in submitting which were the charges earlier deducted and which are the charges now continued to be deducted. In the absence of any specific allegation and averment with reference to the nature of charge or which amounts are deducted, it would be difficult to decide the matter on merits. No relief could be granted on such a vague allegation. We permit the petitioners to withdraw the PIL and make a study of the Ordinance and also the practice continued subsequent to the Ordinance in the Market Committee and if the petitioners are still aggrieved by any of the deduction, they are at liberty to approach the Court.

¶19

4. Accordingly the PIL is disposed of.

¶20

(M.S. SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

2 of 2

¶22

ABS

The Indian Chamber of Agriculture through President Shri Shivnath B. Horse v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Co-Op., Marketing and Textile Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Chamber of Agriculture through President Shri Shivnath B. Horse v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Co-Op., Marketing and Textile Dept. and Ors.

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

Firoz Khan S/O Karam Khan Taji and Others Vs Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust Tajabad Thr. Chairman Umred Road Nagpur

The Court on Its Own Motion Vs the Union of India, Ministry of Public Health, New Delhi and Oths

Abdul Gaffar Abdul Qadir and Ors. Vs Superintendent Public Trust Registration Office Nasik and Anr.

Shri. Kantibhai Devji Sankhala and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Town Planning and Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Sanjay Krishna Chavan Vs M.M. Corporation and 3 Ors.

Aditya Barthakur Vs Department of Posts and Ors.

Bhaskar Mahadev Ware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt. Rehana Habib Merchant Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Alan C W Tang Vs Jayesh B Patel

Darius Dhanju Chichgur Vs Jeroo Rustome Engineer and 3 Others

Darius Dhanju Chichgur Vs Jeroo Rustom Engineer and 3 Ors.

Shri. Bhushan Datta Samant Vs the Chief Minister, Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ketan K. Tirodkar Vs Smt. Hema Malini Alias Smt Hema Dharmendra Deol

Mr. Nikunj H. Raval Vs the District Collector, Alibag and Ors.