Bombay High Court
Agriculture Produce Market, ... vs Sayyed Arshlan @ Kais S/O. Sakir ... on 7 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp1596.16.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1596 OF 2016
1. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Tirora
through it's Chief Administrator, Tirora,
Distt. Gondia.
2. Chintaman s/o Prabhudas Rahangdale,
age about 38 yrs., Chief Administrator,
Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Tirora
r/o Khairbodi, Tah. Tirora,
Distt. Gondia. ::ig PETITIONERS
.. Versus
..
Sayyed Arshlan @ Kais s/o Sakir Ali,
aged 20 yrs., Occp. Business,
r/o Tirora, Tah. Tirora,
Distt. Gondia. :: RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Shri I. N. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A. K. Borkar, Advocate for the respondent.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 7th APRIL, 2016.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
O R A L J U D G M E N T
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
3. It is seen from the record that the document at annexure P8
(page-56) bears an outward No. Q/2014 2015 though the photo-stat
copy does not bear any outward number. This document shows that
the contract of supplying meal to the agriculturists on concessional
wp1596.16.odt 2/3
rate given to the respondent was valid till 31/3/2015. It is not in
dispute that document dated 07/11/2014, which is of the same date
as of the document at page 56, which has been exhibited by the trial
Court, by treating it as reliable document, does not bear any outward
number. This document not bearing an outward number found by
the trial Court as more reliable than the photo-stat copy of the
document bearing outward number and it appears to be made the
basis by trial Court for finding a prima facie case in favour of the
respondent. The trial Court has not at all considered the contention
of the petitioners that a document not bearing any outward number
cannot be considered to be a genuine document. The trial Court
ought to have looked into this material aspect of the case, which goes
to the root of the finding regarding existence of prima facie case. The
trial Court also could have given an opportunity to the petitioners to
place before it the relevant record maintained at the office of A.P.M.C.,
Tirora and which could have been looked into by the trial Court to
satisfy itself about the genuineness of either of these two documents.
This has also not been considered appropriately by the first appellate
Court. I, therefore, find that the impugned orders are illegal and
perverse, which cannot be maintained.
In the result,
I. The petition is allowed.
II. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the trial Court for disposal of Exh.5
wp1596.16.odt 3/3
application afresh, in accordance with law. However, in the
interest of the agriculturists, the arrangement directed to be
made in the impugned order passed by the trial Court shall
be continued till final disposal of the application Exh.5, in
accordance with law.
III. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 02/5/2016.
IV. The trial Court to dispose of the application (Exh.5) latest by
30/6/2016.
V. All contentions of the parties are kept open. The trial Court
shall also consider the objection of the petitioners that
without the contractor Maroti Patle being made a party-
defendant, the application (Exh.5) cannot be heard shall
also be decided, in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
wwl
