← Library
Bombay High CourtCAW/1383/2018ca disposed off

Shri Santosh Harichandra Kuchankar And Others v. The State Of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, Department Of Co-Operation, Marketing And Textiles, Mumbai

2019-01-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.M. Modak2 pages

wp.2853.18 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application [CAW] No.1383 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.2853 of 2018 Santosh Harishchandra Kuchankar & others vs.

The State of Maharashtra, through it's Secretary, Department of Co-Operation, Marketing & Textiles, Mumbai & others =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= OfÏce notes, OfÏce Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for the Applicant/Intervenor. Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.A. Barabde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri M.Y. Wadodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

CORAM

: S.B. SHUKRE & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 16 th JANUARY, 2019.

Heard.

Today we have finally heard the petition itself, but, before passing any final order on the petition, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this application in view of the order passed on 3rd July, 2018.

The grievance of the applicant, who was seeking intervention in this petition, is that the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, without having any authority, reduced the market fee from minimum rate of market fee prescribed by the State Government and, therefore, the applicant has sought

wp.2853.18 2/2 intervention in this matter to assist the Court. However, as we seen, there is no issue involved in this petition regarding the authority of the Market Committed to prescribe market fee to at a rate which is lower than the one prescribed by the State Government. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners also submits that there is no contention raised in this petition to this effect nor any prayer to this effect has been made in this petition.

This being the position, we do not think that any fruitful purpose would be served by allowing this application and, therefore, the application stands rejected.

JUDGE JUDGE *sandesh