Remanded

Kisan Mahadev Bobade v. Grocery Market and Shops Board and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2020WP/11976/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay HC converted the writ petition into a representation to the Grocery Market and Shop Board. The court directed the Board to investigate genuineness of grievances regarding interference with Mathadi workers and provide a hearing within six weeks before disposing.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to treat petition as representation, satisfy themselves with genuineness of grievances, take necessary steps within six weeks after giving opportunity to parties.

Kisan Mahadev Bobade Vs Grocery Market and Shops Board… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

skn 1 31-11976.19-wp.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11976 OF 2019

¶4

Kisan Mahadev Bobade. … Petitioner. V/s. Grocery Market and Shop Board, Mumbai and another. … Respondents.

¶5

Mr.Shrikant Rathi i/b. A.S.Peerzada for the Petitioner. Mr.Rahul D. Oak with B.S.Mahamulkar for Respondent No.1. Mr.Vaibhav Jagdale with Mr.Avinash Jalisatgi for Respondent No.2.

¶6

Digitally signed by Sanjay K. Sanjay K. Nanoskar Nanoskar Date: 2020.02.27 11:47:55 +0530

¶7

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 21 February 2020.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

The learned counsel for the Respondents are present. A request is made on behalf of the Petitioner for adjournment. We have perused the petition and we are of the opinion that the petition need not be kept pending as there are various questions of fact which need to be first considered by the statutory body established to govern the functioning of the Mathadi workers. It is the prayer of the Petitioner that the Respondents should stop the process of increasing the members of the Toli of the Petitioner. Certain allegations have been made of political influence to disrupt the

¶10

skn 2 31-11976.19-wp.doc

¶11

functioning and work of the Petitioner. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 disputes such factual assertions.

¶12

We notice from the annexures that the Petitioner has made a representation to the Respondent No.1- Grocery Market and Shop Board making grievance regarding interference in the functioning of the Petitioner. This grievance has not been redressed by Respondent No.1- Board so far.

¶13

We, therefore, direct the Respondent No.1- Grocery Market and Shop Board to treat this petition as a representation made to a statutory body and take necessary steps as may be permissible in law after satisfying itself with the genuineness of the Petitioner’s grievances. Necessary steps be take within a period of six weeks from today after giving an opportunity to both the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2.

¶14

4. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

(M.S. KARNIK, J.)

Kisan Mahadev Bobade v. Grocery Market and Shops Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisan Mahadev Bobade v. Grocery Market and Shops Board and Anr.

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

L'Oreal India Private Limited Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise, PUNE-1

Subedar S Saji Kumar Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi and Gumasta Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Miss. Shital Madhukarrao Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Jagruti Vijay Ghaywate and Anr. Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mr. Nitin v. Kulkarni Vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Corporation and Ors.