Bombay High Court
Agriculture Produce Market ... vs Honble Minister Cooperation ... on 25 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp1872.16.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1872 OF 2016
1. Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
through its Secretary, Washim.
2. Bhagwan Haribhau Ingale,
aged 51 yrs., Occp. Service,
3. Yuraj Damodhar Padgham,
aged 58 yrs., Occp. Service,
4. Anil Pandurang Rathod,
aged 41 yrs., Occp. Service,
5. Nandkumar Raghoji Wankhede,
aged 46 yrs., Occp. Service,
6. Smt. Dwarkabai Rameshwar Dhadve,
aged about 40 yrs., Occp. Service,
7. Vijay Shivprasad Vyas,
aged 57 yrs., Occp. Service,
8. Lodu Deoba Kad,
aged about 57 yrs., Occp. Service,
9. Shalikram Sakharam Khodge,
aged about 57 yrs., Occp. Service,
10. Yogesh Laxman Budhe,
aged about 57 yrs., Occp. Service,
11. Umesh Duttarao Mapari,
aged about 27 yrs., Occp. Service,
12. Jagdish Sopan Budhe,
aged about 30 yrs., Occp. Service,
13. Ramhari Vishwanath Wankhede,
aged about 30 yrs., Occp. Service,
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:45:00 :::
wp1872.16.odt 2/4
14. Ishwar Bhaskar Gavai,
aged about 28 yrs., Occp. Service,
15. Mohan Motiram Bhalerao
aged about 23 yrs., Occp. Service.
Petitioner No.2 to 15 r/o c/o
Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Washim. :: PETITIONERS
.. Versus
..
1. Hon'ble Minister,
Cooperation, Marketing & Handloom,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Director, Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Washim.
4. Sandeep Ramkrishna Nandapure,
Aged-Major, r/o Walki-Dholki,
Post-Tamsi, Distt. Washim. :: RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Shri A. S. Kilor, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms T. H. Udeshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri S. C. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.4.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 25th 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 reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1
wp1872.16.odt 3/4
that notices were issued to petitioner Nos. 1 and 15 and they are also
received by them. However, it is further seen, petitioner Nos. 1 and 15
chose to remain absent during the course of hearing of the appeal
before respondent No.1.
4. Thus, it has now become clear that notices were issued only
to petitioner Nos. 1 and 15 and not to petitioner Nos. 2 to 14. Of
course, these petitioners were not parties to the appeal in question
and, therefore, there was no need for issuing any notice to them. But,
from the impugned order passed in the said appeal, it appears that the
effect of the appeal goes beyond the position of petitioner Nos. 1 and
15 and the order passed in appeal adversely affects even the petitioner
Nos. 2 to 14. Therefore, in such a case, it was necessary that
opportunity of hearing was granted to petitioner Nos. 2 to 14 as well.
5. In view of the above, order dated 09/2/2016 would have to
be quashed and set aside and the matter would have to be remanded
back to respondent No.1 for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law
after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties, who are going to
be affected in this case and these parties would be the petitioner Nos. 1
to 15 as also respondent No.4.
6. In the result,
I. Writ petition is allowed.
II Impugned order is quashed and set aside.
wp1872.16.odt 4/4
III. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for
deciding it afresh, in accordance with law after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner Nos. 1 to 15
as well as to respondent No.4.
IV. The parties to appear before respondent No.1 on
16/5/2016.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
wwl
