Nandkumar Laxman Dakore v. Balaji Ramrao Desai And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 58 WRIT PETITION NO.12625 OF 2022 WITH CA/16879/2022 IN WP/12625/2022 BALAJI RAMRAO DESAI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil AGP for Respondent - State : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar Advocate for Respondent No.9 : Mr. U.M. Maske Patil Advocate for Respondent No.10 : Mr. S.K. Kadam ...

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

DATE : 27-03-2023 PER COURT :

.

For the reasons stated in the intervention application, the same is allowed.

2.

Petitioners claim to be office bearers of respondent no. 9 - APMC and after their tenure has come to an end on June 02, 2022 they were granted extension for a period of six months i.e. upto December 02, 2022 pursuant to second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1966').

3.

According to Mr. Ghatol Patil, learned counsel for petitioner, the postponement of election of respondent no.9 - APMC was not at the behest of petitioner, but in view of pandemic such postponement was ordered by the Government. In such an eventuality, he would urge that unless there are adverse reasons, the term of petitioner being the Director of respondent no. 9 - APMC should have been extended by another six months. So as to substantiate such claim, he has placed reliance upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Radhakisan s/o. Deorao Pathade & Ors vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in 2021 (3) ALL MR 328.

4.

Mr. S.K. Kadam, learned counsel for respondent no.10 - State Cooperative Election Authority submits that the election program of respondent no.9 is already declared and the same shall be concluded by the end of April-2023.

5.

In view of above, this Court may refrain itself from exercising discretionary jurisdiction.

6.

There appears to be substance in the submission of learned counsel for respondent no.10. On facts the case of petitioner

is not similar to the one as has been decided in the aforesaid judgment of Radhakishan (supra).

7.

In the case in hand, since the election programme is already declared which is to be concluded by end of April-2023, no fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the writ petition thereby ordering extension in favour of petitioner as it shall be always open for petitioner to contest the election. In that view of the matter, this Court refrain from causing any interference in the petition and the same stands disposed of accordingly.

( S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE , J. ) GGP