Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court disposed of Writ Petition No.2079 of 1990 filed by the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee challenging an order dated 17.10.1989. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Y.R. Naik, while respondent Nos.1, 2, and 6 were represented by the Assistant Government Pleader. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 did not appear. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the impugned order could not be sustained for the same reasons already indicated in the order passed in Writ Petition No.2056 of 1990, which was disposed of on the same day. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and disposed of the rule with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Agricultural Produce Marketing - Market Committee Order - Validity - Impugned order dated 17.10.1989 set aside for same reasons as in Writ Petition No.2056 of 1990 - Court found the order unsustainable and allowed the writ petition - Held that the order cannot be sustained (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 17.10.1989 is sustainable
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 17.10.1989 set aside; rule disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order set aside for reasons indicated in companion matter
- No order as to costs
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 241
WRIT PETITION NO.2079 OF 1990
R.M. Lodha, J.P. Devadhar
Mr. Y.R. Naik (for petitioner), Mr. M.D. Naik (for respondent Nos.1,2,6)
The Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee
The State of Maharashtra, Shri B.D. Pawar, The Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd., Messrs. Balaji & Maharana Flour Mills, Shri Bansiwala Milling & Trading Co., Shri Abhaysinh Raje Bhosale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order dated 17.10.1989
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of the impugned order
Filing Reason
Impugned order dated 17.10.1989 was unsustainable
Previous Decisions
Order in Writ Petition No.2056 of 1990 passed on the same day
Issues
Whether the impugned order dated 17.10.1989 is sustainable
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned order cannot be sustained; respondent Nos.1,2,6 supported the order
Ratio Decidendi
The impugned order is unsustainable for the same reasons as indicated in the order passed in Writ Petition No.2056 of 1990.
Judgment Excerpts
After having heard Mr.Y.R.Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.D.Naik, the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1,2 and 6, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reasons we have already indicated in our order passed today while disposing of the writ petition No.2056 of 1990.
For the self-same reasons, we find the impugned order unsustainable. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.10.1989 impugned in the present writ petition is set aside. Rule is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No.2079 of 1990 filed in the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 17.10.1989. Heard on 17.06.2005 and disposed of along with Writ Petition No.2056 of 1990.
