2710WP6350.05-Judgment 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6350 OF 2005
PETITIONERS :- 1. Babarao S/o Shyamraoji Shid, aged about 48
years, occupation agriculturist, r/o Kawtha,
at Post Sindhi, Taluka Nagpur Gramin, Dist.
Nagpur.
2. Arun s/o Shyamraoji Mahakalkar, aged
about 40 years, occupation agriculturist, r/o
Khapri, Post Khapri, Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur.
ig ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Department of
Cooperation, Marketing and Textile,
Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Marketing, Central Building
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Nagpur.
4. The Collector, Nagpur.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur.
6. Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Kalmana Market, Nagpur, through its
Secretary.
7. The Administrator namely Shri Rameshwar
H. Parate, Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Kalmana Market, Nagpur.
8. Sambhaji s/o Ramaji Wadibhasme, aged
about 40 years, occupation agriculturist, r/o
at post Neri, Taluka Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:12:05 :::
2710WP6350.05-Judgment 2/2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioners.
Mr. A.R.Chutake, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
None for the respondent Nos.6 and 7.
Shri P. C. Madkholkar, counsel for the respondent No.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 27.10.2016 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the impugned order dated 25/10/2005 extending the term of office of the members of the respondent No.6 is just, proper and legal. The petitioners had also sought a direction against the respondent No.1 to extend the term of the office of the market committee.
It is apparent from a reading of the prayer clause that the cause for filing the writ petition is rendered infructuous due to passage of time. The term of office of the market committee is five years and the term cannot be extended beyond one year. If that be so, the cause of action in the petition filed in the year 2005 would not survive.
Hence, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:12:05 :::