Bombay High CourtWP/3160/2015dismissedrule discharged

Nitin S/O Kashinath Patel, And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Cooperation, Mumbai And Others

2015-07-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp3160.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3160/2015 Nitin s/o Kashinath Patel and another ..Versus..

The State of Maharashtra and 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.P. Kariya, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for respondents 6 and 7. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 20.7.2015 The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister allowing the revision filed by the respondents 6 and 7. Admittedly, the petitioners were not party to the proceedings before the Hon'ble Minister and even before the subordinate Authorities. The petitioners have explained their entitlement to file the petition in paragraph no.2 of the writ petition as follows : "2] The petitioners are citizen of India having permanent resident mentioned in the clause title. The petitioner no.1 is nominated member of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Anjangaon Surji through Panchayat Samiti, thus the petitioner no.1 has responsibility to see the welfare of A.P.M.C. Anjangaon Surji. The petitioner no.2 is Ex-Chairman of A.P.M.C. Anjangaon Surji, therefore, he is a person to look the welfare of A.P.M.C. Anjangaon Surji."

2 wp3160.15 Considering the facts of the case, in my view, the petitioners have no locus standi to file petition challenging the impugned order. I am not inclined to entertain the petition at the behest of the petitioners. The petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner no.2 shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the respondent no.1/State and Rs.10,000/- jointly to the respondents 6 and 7 within one month. Needless to say that as I have not examined the legality of the impugned order, it would be open for the aggrieved person to raise challenge to it, if so advised. The petition is dismissed in the above terms.

JUDGE Tambaskar.