Bombay High CourtCAW/345/2016admittedallwdgrantedrule absolute

Shri. Kalmeshwar Shetkari Sahakari Ginning And Pressing Sanstha Maryadit Thr President, Yavatmal v. State Of Maha. Thr Secretary Cooperation And Textile Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai And Others

2016-03-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre2 pages

2303wp968.16.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 344 OF 2016 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO. 968 OF 2016 (Rajaram Ginning & Pressing Sahakari Sanstha, Ner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 345 OF 2016 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO. 969 OF 2016 (Shri Kalmeshwar Shetkari Sahakari Ginning & Pressing Sanstha, 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M. V. Samarth, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms T. H. Udeshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri F. T. Mirza, Advocate for the intervenor. CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 23 MARCH, 2016 Heard Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the applicant-intervenor, Shri Samarth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Udeshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

The applicant was the objector. The application deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly. The applicant-intervenor be added as party-intervenor to the petition.

Learned A.G.P. for the State and learned Counsel for the intervenor seek time to file reply in the matter. The request is not opposed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that interim stay to

2303wp968.16.odt 2/2 the impugned order be granted. He submits that because of operation of the impugned order, rights of the petitioner in various way are being affected and, therefore, it would be necessary that the impugned order is stayed, especially when same has been passed without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The prayer for grant of interim stay can be considered on the next date as one interim order passed on 17/2/2016 is already operating in favour of the petitioner. Stand over to 05/4/2016.

JUDGE wwl