Bombay High Court
Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Tribunal Agri.Produce Market ... on 3 November, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp3267.15+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2015
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3273 OF 2015
W.P. NO. 3267/2015
Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Mul, Tq. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur.
through its Secretary,
Chatur Vithobaji Mohurle.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Tribunal, Agricultural Produce
Market Committee, Mul and
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Chandrapur,
Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Co-operation
& Handloom, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
3. Yashodha Hybrid Seeds Private Ltd.,
through its Proprietor,
248, Near Laxmi Talkies,
Hinganghat, Tq. Hinganghat,
Distt. Wardha.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri M.P.Khajanchi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Neeraj Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 00:06:18 :::
Judgment 2 wp3267.15+1.odt
W.P. NO. 3273/2015
Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Mul, Tq. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur.
through its Secretary,
Chatur Vithobaji Mohurle.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Tribunal, Agricultural Produce
Market Committee, Mul and
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Chandrapur,
Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Co-operation
& Handloom, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
3. Mahabij Seeds Processing Centre,
through its Manager,
Mul, Tq. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri M.P.Khajanchi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Neeraj Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Shri Kuldeep Mahalle Adv.h/f.Shri S.G.Loney,Advocate for Respondent No.3.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 03, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
Judgment 3 wp3267.15+1.odt
2. These two petitions are being disposed by common judgment as
the issue involved in both the petitions is same.
3. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is
challenged on various grounds, one of it being the Tribunal has heavily relied
on its visit to the plant, however, the visit was conducted and inspection of
the plant was done without giving any notice to the petitioner. The learned
advocate for the respondent No.3 has not disputed this factual aspect that the
visit and inspection is without notice to the petitioner. The impugned order
shows that the Tribunal has relied on its observations at the time of the
above referred visit.
5. In the facts of the case, in my view, the interests of justice
would be sub-served by passing the following order:
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted to the respondent No.1-Tribunal for
deciding it afresh.
It is clarified that if the Tribunal intends to conduct visit and
spot inspection of the plant, it shall do so with prior notice to
the petitioner and the respondent No.3 in both these petitions.
Judgment 4 wp3267.15+1.odt
iii) The Tribunal shall dispose the matter till 15th March, 2018.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,
the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
