Bombay High CourtWP/2246/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Ramesh Akoshi Darokar v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept Of Cooperation, Marketing And Handloom, Mumbai And Others

2016-06-21Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

21.06.wp.2246.16

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2246 /2016 (Ramesh Akoshi Darokar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ) .............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .............................................................................................................................................. Mr. A.S.Kilor, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Nitin Rode, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. A.J.Thakkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A.NAIK & MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 21st June, 2016 Heard.

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner had challenged the notification of the State Government, dated 2nd April 2016, postponing the elections to the Market Committee, by a period of six months.

Shri A.S.Kilor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly states that even if it is considered that the term of the office of the petitioner was extended by a period of six months, the term would come to an end on 28.8.2016.

Shri Nitin Rode, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 states on instructions, that the elections to the Market Committee would be concluded on or before 30th September, 2016. It is stated that till the elections are concluded, the

21.06.wp.2246.16 respondent no. 4 would continue to administer the Agriculture Produce market Committee. It is stated that the respondent nos.1 to 3 would not appoint private persons as Administrators till the elections are concluded and the respondent no.4 would continue to work as an Administrator. In view of the statements made on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grievance of the petitioner would stand substantially redressed. In view of the statements recorded hereinabove, we dispose of the Writ Petition by accepting the statements made on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 that would be binding on the respondent nos. 1 to 3, with no order as to costs. Steno copy is granted, on request.

JUDGE JUDGE sahare