Bombay High Court
Agricultural Produce Market Comm vs Director Of Marketing Mah. State & ... on 4 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.2999.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2999 OF 2002.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7798 OF 2003.
Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Bhadrawati, Taluq Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur, through its
Chairman Namdeorao Nanaji
Matte, aged about 59 years, r/o
Bazar Ward, Bhadrawati. ..... PETITIONER.
....Versus....
1] Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
2] District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies,
Chandrapur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
None for petitioner.
Mr. S.J. Kadu, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 2.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 4, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
, J.)
1] Nobody for petitioners. Mr. S.J. Kadu, learned A.G.P.
appears for respondent nos. 1 & 2.
2 WP.2999.02
2] With his assistance, we have perused records. We find
that proposal moved by petitioner APMC for recruitment of five
employees was accepted and thereafter recruitment was done.
Against recruitment and grant of permission to recruit, some
representations were made and by impugned order dated 4.6.2002
the respondent no.1 stayed order granting permission to recruit. On
15.6.2002 this order and stay has been communicated by respondent
no.2 to petitioner. On 29.6.2002 respondent no.1 has asked
petitioner to terminate these five employees and to recover the
amounts spent on their salary, etc. from the Directors of Board of
APMC.
3] APMC has approached against these orders pointing out
that on 22.1.2002 permission was legally granted and thereafter
recruitment was made. Employees were working and in that situation
if any adverse order was to be passed, at least principles of natural
justice should have been satisfied. In the wake of this grievance, on
11.3.2004 we have issued notice and protected petitioner as also
those five employees.
4] Complainants who objected to grant of permission to
recruit, are before this Court and in Civil Application No. 7798/03.
3 WP.2999.02
They submitted that action has been taken on their complaint by
respondent nos. 1 & 2 and hence, they must be heard by this Court.
This Court has directed on 23.7.2004 that said application would be
considered at the time of final hearing.
5] Today, there is no appearance by petitioners as also for
complainants. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 have filed submissions on
16.1.2003. Therein they have accepted the fact of withdrawal/
cancellation of permission to recruit.
6] In Writ Petition there is specific contention that orders of
withdrawal or suspension have been passed behind back and in this
reply, respondent nos. 1 & 2 do not point out any show-cause notice
or then any opportunity of hearing extended either to petitioner or
then to those five employees. Interim orders are operating since
last 15 years and those five employees, therefore, must be
continuing.
7] In this situation, we find that interest of justice can be met
with by directing the petitioner and concerned five employees to
appear before respondent no.2 in the matter on 29.1.2018.
Applicants in Civil Application No. 7798/03 shall also appear on that
4 WP.2999.02
day for hearing.
8] After hearing all concerned, respondent no.2 or as the
case may be respondent no.1 shall then take necessary decision in
the matter as per law. This decision shall be taken in next four
months.
9] With these directions, we quash and set aside the orders
dated 4.6.2002, 15.6.2002 and 29.6.2002 at Annexure H, J & K.
10] The Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of.
No costs. Civil Application No. 7798/03 also stands disposed of.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
