Raghvendrasingh S/O ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 3391 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 June, 2017

Bombay High Court
Raghvendrasingh S/O ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 20 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
                                                                                        wp4952.13.odt

                                                      1

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

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.4952/2013

     PETITIONER :               Raghvendrasingh s/o Chandansingh Bais
                                Aged about 52 years, Secretary, Agriculture 
                                Produce Market Committee, Tiroda, 
                                Tah. Tiroda, District Gondia. 

                                                   ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS :    1.  State of Maharashtra, 
                           Co-op. Marketing & Textile Department, 
                           Through its Secretary, Mantralaya, 
                          Mumbai : 32. 

                                2.  Managing Director, 
                                     Maharashtra State Agricultural 
                                     Market Board, Plot No.7, Market 
                                     Yard, Gool Tekdi, Pune - 411037.

                                3.  Director of Agricultural Marketing 
                                     Office of the Director Agricultural 
                                     Marketing Maharashtra State, 3rd Floor
                                     New Central Building, Pune - 411001. 

                                4.  Agriculture Produce Market Committee, 
                                     Tiroda, Tq. Tiroda, District Gondia. 

                                5.  Bapu s/o Uttam Kotwal, 
                                     Aged about - Major, R/o At Post :
                                     Astapur, Tq. Haveli, District Pune. 

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Shri I.J. Damle, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3
                       Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for respondent no.2
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                                      ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
                                                     DATE    :   20.06.2017 


::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017                                    ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:49:04 :::
                                                                              wp4952.13.odt

                                              2

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders of the State Government and the respondent no.2 - Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board, dated 15.7.2013 and 27.8.2013 respectively.

During the pendency of the writ petition, by an order dated 10.12.2013, we had directed the Agriculture Produce Market Committees to forward the proposal of the Secretaries for grant of approval to their appointment to the Director of Marketing and had directed the Director of Marketing to examine the proposal and take a necessary decision within a particular time. It appears that in all the connected cases a decision is taken by the Director of Marketing and the proposal pertaining to the appointment of the Secretaries was approved. It appears that the approval is granted to the appointment of the Secretaries of the A.P.M.C. in all the connected matters. It is also pointed out that the impugned order of the State Government dated 15.7.2013 has been cancelled by the Government Resolution dated 21.4.2017.

In view of the aforesaid, it is most likely that the cause for filing this petition would not survive, inasmuch as the grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed.

::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:49:04 :::

wp4952.13.odt 3 In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                    JUDGE                                                                JUDGE




     Wadkar




::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017                                  ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:49:04 :::