Dismissed

Sharad S/O. Ajabrao Bhoyar and Another v. State of Maha., Dept. of Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Thr. Principal Sect, Mumbai and Other

Bombay HC2 Feb 2016WP/723/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a Writ Petition seeking cancellation of an election programme declared under the APMC Act. The Court held that since the State Government had not exercised its statutory power to further extend the election period by another six months, no error was committed in declaring the elections.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sharad S/O. Ajabrao Bhoyar and Another Vs State of Maha., Dept… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

WP723-16.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

Writ Petition No.723/2016

¶5

(Sharad Ajabrao Bhoyar and another .vs. State of Maharashtra and others )

¶6

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders

¶7

Mr. A.R. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. S.J. Kadu, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 & 6.

¶9

CORAM : B.R. Gavai & P.N. Deshmukh, JJ. DATED : February 2, 2016.

¶10

The petitioners have approached this Court praying for cancellation of the election programme declared by respondent no.4.

¶11

It is the contention of the petitioner that vide order dated 23.07.2015 while exercising the powers under Section 14(3A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, (for short "the APMC Act") the State Government had postponed the election for a period of six months. It is the contention of the petitioner that the same was done in view of the drought situation. The learned counsel submits that the same position even exists today and as such there was no occasion to declare the election programme.

¶12

The provisions of Section 14(3A) of the APMC Act enables the State Government to postpone the election for a period of six months and if necessary for a further period of six months with the rider that the total period shall not exceed one year in the aggregate. It is thus clear that it is for the State Government to exercise

¶13

¶14

WP723-16.odt

¶15

the powers and to take a decision whether the further extension is necessary or not.

¶16

If the State Government has not decided to extend the said period by a further period of six months, we do not find that any error is committed by respondent no.4 in declaring the election programme. 5. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the petition. The petition is, therefore, rejected.

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

halwai

Sharad S/O. Ajabrao Bhoyar and Another v. State of Maha., Dept. of Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Thr. Principal Sect, Mumbai and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sharad S/O. Ajabrao Bhoyar and Another v. State of Maha., Dept. of Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Thr. Principal Sect, Mumbai and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Haridas Meshram, Nagpur Vs State of Maharashtra, Settlement Commissioner and Director, Thr Secretary, Pune and Others

Gima Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., Wardha, through Its Director Omprakash Bhikmchand Joshi and Another Vs Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue), Govt. of India, New Delhi

Plantation Officer, Samajik Vanikaran, Akola and Anr. Vs Smt. Radhabai Wd/O Janardhal Lohakare and Anr.

Mangrulpir Education Society, through Its President, Shri Ashfaque Khan Majid Khan Vs Shri Nandkumar, Secretary School Education and Sports Deptt., Mumbai

Sadiq Shafi Qureshi Vs Mr. Amarlal Daulatani, Executive Director, the Corporate Bank and 4 Others

The Commissioner Central Excise, Nagpur Vs M/S Ador Fontech Ltd. Nagpur and Another