Bombay High Court
The Agriculture Produce Market ... vs Joint Director Of Marketing, ... on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
WP 608 of 2014.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.608/2014
PETITIONER : The Agriculture Produce Market Committee,
Buldhana, Secular road, market yard,
Buldhana; Through its Secretary.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Joint Director of Marketing, Central
Building, Pune, Maharashtra.
2. Sunderpuria and Sons,
Proprietor :- Gyanshyamdas Jawlaprasad
Agrawal, Aged about - 55 Occu. Business
R/o Sunerpuria Niwas, Jai Nagar, Jalgaon,
Tah. & Distt. Jalgaon.
3. M/s Shiv Trading Company
Proprietor :- Shri Sharad Shrikrushna Wagh
Aged about - 31, Occu. Business,
R/o Dhad, Distt. Buldhana.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.D. Karode, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.M. Ukey, Addl. G.P. for respondent no.1
Shri S.G. Karmarkar, Advocate for respondent no.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 26/08/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order dated 11/07/2013, in one of its directions, had
WP 608 of 2014.odt
directed the Agriculture Produce Market Committee to reconsider
the renewal of license of the respondent no.2 within one month
from the date of the decision.
2. Shri Karode, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that in fact, the reconsideration, as directed by the impugned order
dated 11/07/2013, was done by the petitioner, which is reflected
from Resolution No.4, passed in a meeting of the General Body of
the petitioner on 31/07/2013. He submits that in ignorance of the
said reconsideration, the petition came to be filed and the order
dated 05/12/2015, issuing Rule and granting interim relief came to
be passed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view
of the reconsideration already done, as reflected from Resolution
No.4 dated 31/07/2013, there was no necessity for filing the
petition at all and the factum of not bringing this to the notice of the
Court was because of inadvertence. He, therefore, prays for
withdrawal of the petition.
WP 608 of 2014.odt
4. In view of what has been stated, since the time of the
Court is wasted from 2014 till date, the withdrawal is permitted,
however, subject to costs of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Nagpur, within a period of two weeks from today. In case the
amount is not so paid, list the matter thereafter before the Court, for
that purpose. The writ petition is therefore disposed of as
withdrawn. Rule stands discharged.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
