Dismissed

Sau. Nalini W/O Gajanan Gonnade v. the Chief Officer, Bhandara Municipal Council,Bhandara

Bombay HC14 Jan 2020WP/8328/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench dismissed a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought to restrain private parties from obstructing market fee collection. The court held the relationship was a commercial contract and directed the petitioner to file a civil suit for injunction instead of pursuing the writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to file a civil suit.

Sau. Nalini W/O Gajanan Gonnade Vs the Chief Officer… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

WP8328.19

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8328/2019

¶5

Sau. Nalini w/o. Gajanan Gonnade

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Chief Officer, Bhandara Municipal Council, Bhandara and six others.

¶8

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders
or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶10

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶11

Shri H.A.Khedikar, Advocate, for petitioner.

¶12

Shri A.S.Fulzele, Addl.Government Pleader for respondent nos.
2, 5 and 6.

¶13

CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE and
 A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 14.01.2020

¶15

The claim of the petitioner is to restrain the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 from creating obstruction in
collection of the market fee by the petitioner as an
authorized contractor of the respondent no.1-Municipal
Council, Bhandara.

¶16

The complaint is that inspite of having power,
the respondent no.1-Chief Officer, Municipal Council, is not
exercising the same to prevent the respondent nos. 3 and 4
from creating obstruction in collection of market fee.

¶17

In our view, it is a commercial contract
between the petitioner and the respondent no.1-Municipal
Council. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the private
parties. It is open for the petitioner to file civil suit
claiming appropriate order of injunction against the
respondents.

¶18

WP8328.19

¶19

2/2

¶20

We therefore dismiss the writ petition on the
ground of existence of an alternate remedy. All questions
are left open to be agitated in the civil suit. For other
reliefs also, it is open for the petitioner to adopt
appropriate legal remedy as are permissible in law. No
orders as to costs.

¶21

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Andurkar..

Sau. Nalini W/O Gajanan Gonnade v. the Chief Officer, Bhandara Municipal Council,Bhandara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Nalini W/O Gajanan Gonnade v. the Chief Officer, Bhandara Municipal Council,Bhandara

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

Dr. Vandanatai Dhone Nursing School, Akola through Director Dr. Sudhir S. Dhone Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary,Medical Education and Drugs Dept. and Others

Baba Caterers, through Its Proprietor, Shyam Pukharaj Aasopa Vs Commissioner Social Welfare Directorate, Pune and Another

Nathu Gangadhar Rambhad Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Nagpur

Sanjay Naktu Lengure Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Dept. of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Chetan Hinglas Bharti Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Amravati and 2 Others

Narendra S/O Kashinath Chhapparghare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Labour and Industrial Department, Mumbai and Other