1406WP4855.13-Judgment 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4855 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Shri. Labhesh Shankarrao Likhitkar, aged
about 34 years, Occ. Service, R/o.
Sendurjana Ghat, Tal. Warur, Distt.
Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Bombay-32.
2. Managing Director, Maharashtra State
Agricultural Marketing Board, Plot No.7,
Market Yard, Rool Tekdi, Pune.
3. Director of Agricultural Marketing Office of
the Director Agricultural Marketing
Maharashstra State, Pune.
4. Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Morshi, through its Chairman, Morshi,
Distt. Amravati.
5. Shri Pavan Shriramji Barange, Aged about
Major, R/o. Plot No.95, Yogiraj Nagar,
Tapowan, Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Anjan De, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.H.R.Dhumale, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Mr.Ankush Kalmegh, counsel for the respondent No.2.
Mr. S. Paliwal, counsel for the respondent No.4.
None for the respondent No.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 14.06.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:12:56 ::: 1406WP4855.13-Judgment 2/2 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders of the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune dated 07/02/2013 and 16/02/2013.
The petitioner was working as the secretary of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Armori. During the pendency of the writ petition, by an order dated 10/12/2013, this court had while issuing certain directions to the respondents, also directed the Director of Marketing to independently examine the proposal of the petitioner and the other petitioners and take a necessary decision on the proposal within a period of eight weeks. During the pendency of the writ petition, the proposal of the petitioner was favourably decided by the order of the Director of Marketing, dated 13/02/2014, inasmuch as approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner as secretary, subject to certain conditions. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the subsequent development that is based on the order passed by this court on 10/12/2013, the grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed.
Since the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:12:56 :::