Bombay High CourtWP/30/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

M/S. Sai Agrotech F.M.D. (Farm Machinary Division), Yavatmal, Through Partner, Devanand R. Dudhe v. The Union Of India, New Delhi, Through Its Secretary, Dept. Of Agriculture (Goi) And Others

2016-06-13Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

1/2 wp30.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2016 M/s. Sai Agrotech F.M.D. (Farm Machinary Division, thr. its Partner -vsThe Union of India, thr.its Secretary, Deptt. of Agriculture (GOI) and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. R.N.Ghuge, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Deo, ASGI for the respondent No.1.

Mr. N. P. Lambat, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 13.06.2016.

The only prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the applications made by the petitioner for certifying the Light Trap that are manufactured by the petitioner.

The petitioner ventures in biotechnology development and certain other related activities in the field of agriculture. The petitioner claims to have developed the equipment of Light Trap in Chickpea that has been approved by the Department of Entomology of the Krishi Vidyapeeth at Rahuri. Since while submitting the tenders for seeking the contracts that are liable to be awarded by the State Government and the various other organizations, the petitioner requires the certification of the Light Trap equipment that is developed by the petitioner. It is stated that though the petitioner has made a couple of representations to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for certifying the Light Trap that are developed by the petitioner, the representations are not decided as yet.

2/2 wp30.16 Since the prayer made by the petitioner is innocuous, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner as early as possible and positively within a period of three months. Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE