Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Raghvendrasingh S/O ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3391 Bom

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 



                                                                              wp4952.13.odt



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.

wp4952.13.odt

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with

no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                    JUDGE                                                                JUDGE




     Wadkar





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter