← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/172/2015dismissedrule discharged

Shri Ashok S/O Wasudeo Lanje v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Dept. Of Co-Op. Mumbai And 4 Others

2015-03-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre1 pages

2603wp172.15.odt 1/1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 172 OF 2015 (Ashok Wasudeo Lanje Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND S. B. SHUKRE, JJ.

DATED : 26 MARCH, 2015 Shri Bade, learned Counsel for the petitioner is seeking adjournment.

Shri Tambde, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 5 and Shri Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 point out that the petitioner before this Court is Administrator appointed under Section 15A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963. The tenure of the Administrator at the most is of two years and that has expired. Respondent No.4 has replaced him by another Administrator on 11/11/2014. We find that in other petitions filed before this Court at various Benches challenge is to the action taken by respective District Deputy Registrars after issuance of a direction dated 10/11/2014. On that basis, the elected Board of Directors were sought to be replaced by appointing the Administrators. The Administrators were not before this Court and those petitions are filed by the elected Board of Directors.

In this situation, we find no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE wwl