Dismissed

Suman W/O Madhav Bhutekar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC24 Feb 2021WP/822/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition regarding alleged discriminatory grant of extension for Agricultural Produce Market Committee representation. The Court disallowed the subsequent filing of a fresh petition due to the petitioner's failure to amend pleadings with specific details after being granted an opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition as prayed, though such subsequent filing was disapproved.

Suman W/O Madhav Bhutekar Vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

909Bwp 822.2021.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No. 822/2021

¶5

Sau. Suman W/o Madhav Bhutekar

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Shri V.P. Ingle, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri Amit Madiwale, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 – State Shri P.V. Navlani, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 6, to 8/Caveators

¶11

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 24 FEBRUARY 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

In this Petition with others, we had passed the following order on 12 January 2021:

¶15

“Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The main argument of the Petitioners is that though there may not be a right in law to insist upon continuation as elected representatives of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, when the State Government exercises its power under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 to grant extension or refuse the same, it should not act in a discriminatory manner.

¶17

Admittedly, discretion is conferred on the Authority. Because different actions have been taken per se cannot mean that there is discrimination, as by very nature of exercise of discretion such results are contemplated. To demonstrate discrimination as a ground of challenge, the petitioner must plead specifics, and cannot resort to fishing enquiry based on bald pleadings.

SMGate

909Bwp 822.2021.odt

As regards the pleadings in this petition to substantiate the charge of discrimination, they are too general in nature.

¶22

The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that leave may be granted to place on record details in support of the assertions.

¶23

Leave for that purpose is granted.

¶24

Stand over to 27 January 2021.

¶25

Amendment to be carried out before the next date.”

¶26

Thereafter, the Petition was adjourned from time to time at the request to enable the Petitioner to amend the Petition. By order dated 10 February 2021, we had observed that if no amendment is carried out, it will be presumed that the Petitioners have no particulars in support of the case of discrimination.

¶27

No amendment is carried out. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner accepts that at present there is no material in possession of the Petitioner to impute discrimination and seeks liberty to file a fresh Petition.

¶28

We disapprove filing of such a Petition without pleading necessary particulars. Such a Petition ought not to have been filed in the first place.

¶29

There is no interim relief operating at present. We dispose of the Writ Petition with liberty as prayed for. Only out of indulgence, we have not imposed costs.

¶30

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [NITIN JAMDAR, J.]

¶31

SMGate

Suman W/O Madhav Bhutekar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman W/O Madhav Bhutekar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Mumbai and Others

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

M/S. Chaudhari Petroleum Thr. Proprietor, Smt. Sarika W/O Kailash Chaudhari Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and Others

Dilip S/O Holiram Meshram Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administrative Department, Mumbai and Others

Yuniskhan Abdullha Khan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Buldhana and Others

Sau. Ujwala Khemraj Ramteke Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Vilas S/O Dattatraya Gurnule Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Moreshwar S/O Nanaji Patre Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Co-Operation, Textile and Marketing, Mumbai and Others