Writ petition challenging an Ordinance on the apprehension that it would supersede an existing Market Committee. The High Court held the petition to be premature as the stage for notification had not been reached. Disposed on merits being premature.
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.
(909) wpst-31668.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.31668 OF 2018
Tukaram Trimbak Pekhale and ors. : Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra Through Department of Marketing and Textiles and ors. : Respondents.
Mr. Y S Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Kishor Patil I/by Ms. Rukmini Khairnar for the Petitioners.
Mrs. M P Thakur, AGP, for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : 01st NOVEMBER 2018 P.C.
1 The above Writ Petition is founded on an apprehension that the provision contains in the Ordinance dated 24/10/2018 would be applied to the Respondent No.3 – APMC, Nashik, of which the Petitioners are the elected members.
2 The challenge is on the ground that the provision relating to the constitution of the National Level Market Committee as posited by Section 13B of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Registration) Act sought to be introduced by the Ordinance would have the effect of supersession of the present Market Committee.
3 In our view, it is not possible to entertain the above Writ Petition
1 of 2
lgc
(909) wpst-31668.18.doc
which is founded on the apprehension that the Ordinance would be made applicable to the Respondent No.3-APMC. Section 13A which is sought to be introduced by the Ordinance contemplates a notification being issued in respect of the National Level Market Committee. That stage has admittedly not been reached.
4 In our view, therefore, the above Writ Petition as filed, is premature. By leaving the the contentions of the Petitioners open for being urged at the appropriate time in appropriate proceedings, we dispose of the above Writ Petition on the ground of being premature.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J]
2 of 2
lgc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an apprehension that an Ordinance would supersede an existing Market Committee is maintainable before the Ordinance is notified.
Tukaram Trimbak Pekhale and ors.
State of Maharashtra Through Department of Marketing and Textiles and ors.
R. M. SAVANT
NITIN W. SAMBRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court