Jsikisan Trading Company, Prop. ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3772 Bom

 2906WP4396.11-Judgment                                                                         1/3


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO.  4396   OF    2011


 PETITIONERS :-                 1. Jaikisan   Trading   Company,   Prop.   Jaikisan
                                   Jairamdas   Sachani,   Behind   Amardeep
                                   Cinema, Itwari Anaj Bazar, Nagpur. 

                                2. Avinash   Trading   Company,   Prop.   Avinash
                                   Pritamdas   Sachani,   Bhutada   Chambers,
                                   Nagpur. 

                                3. Bhavesh Trading Company, Prop. Anilkumar
                                   Jairamdas   Sachani,   Behind   Amardeep
                                   Talkies, Nagpur. 

                                4. M/s.   Balchand   Hasaram,   Prop.   Balchand
                                   Hasaram   Sachani,   Near   Police   Chowk,
                                   Nagpur. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1.  State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
                                     Ministry   of   Cooperation,   Mantralaya,
                                     Mumbai. 
                                 2. The Chairman, Agriculture Produce Market
                                    Committee,   having   its   office   at   Kalamna
                                    Market Yard, Nagpur. 


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Mr.R.M.Vaidya, counsel h/f Mr.Anand Parchure, 
                                counsel for the petitioners.
    Mr. K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1.
               Mr. Uday Dastane, counsel for the respondent No.2
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    ARUN  D. UPADHYE
                                                                     ,   JJ.

DATED : 29.06.2017

2906WP4396.11-Judgment 2/3

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the

notice of the respondent No.2-Agriculture Produce Market Committee,

dated 20/05/2011, restraining the petitioners from operating from the

places where they were operating as grain traders outside the market

area. The petitioners have also sought a direction against the

respondents to forthwith take steps to allot the shop block to the

petitioners as per their respective entitlement, according to the rules.

After hearing the parties at length, this court had, while

issuing Rule by the order dated 10/10/2012 permitted the petitioners

to carry on their trade at the existing premises till the respondent No.2-

APMC offers them alternate accommodation within the market yard.

Since 10/10/2012, the respondent No.2-APMC has not taken any

decision pertaining to the allotment of alternate accommodation to the

petitioners within the market yard area, with the result that the

petitioners are carrying on their business in the premises in which they

were carrying it on, till the writ petition was filed in the year 2011.

Shri Dastane, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-

APMC, states that though some shops are constructed in the market

area since the elections to the market committee are due, it is not

2906WP4396.11-Judgment 3/3

permissible for the market committee to take a decision pertaining to

the allotment of the shop blocks in favour of the petitioners or any other

persons that had applied for allotment, at this stage. It is stated that a

decision could be taken by the market committee after the elections. It

is stated that the writ petition could be disposed of by continuing the

interim relief till a decision whether the shops could be allotted to the

petitioners or not, is taken by the market committee.

Since the interim relief is operating in favour of the

petitioners for more than five years and some time would be required

for the APMC to take a decision on the applications made by the

petitioners and others for allotment of shop blocks in the market area,

we dispose of the writ petition by continuing the interim relief granted

on 10/10/2012 till the respondent No.2-APMC takes a decision in the

matter of allotment of shops to the applicants. Order accordingly. No

costs.

                        JUDGE                                             JUDGE 


 KHUNTE