Gujarat High Court
Surendranagar vs Union on 4 February, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9831/2009 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9831 of 2009
=========================================================
SURENDRANAGAR
DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & 68 -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 69.MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1 -
69.
MR PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS
for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4,6 - 7.
MR DC DAVE for Respondent(s) :
2,4 - 5.
MR TUSHAR MEHTA, LD. ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR HH
PARIKH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 3,
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for
Respondent(s) : 6,
MR.VARUN K.PATEL for Respondent(s) :
7,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 04/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The petitioners, by this petition, have challenged the action on the part of respondent No.2 and its subsidiary respondent No.4 to establish a parallel structure or infrastructure for collection of milk from the milk produces in the area, where comprehensive structure is already functioning for Surendranagar District.
Heard Mr.Mangukiya, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Champaneri, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr.Dave, learned Counsel for respondents No.2, 4, and 5, Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.3, Mr.Varun Patel, learned Counsel for respondent No.7 and Mr.Kunal Nanavati for Nanavati Associates for respondent No.6.
It appears that the principal grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners is that if such a parallel structure of collection of milk is permitted through NDDB and its other agency respondent No.4 herein, it would result into unhealthy competition and it would also adversely affect the present cooperative structure of Milk Cooperative Societies at the village level and also at the district level, therefore, the action is under challenge.
Whereas, Mr.Dave, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 4 contended that the activities are taken up by NDDB under the permission of the Government and for the larger interest of the milk producers or the farmers having cattle and and also the end-users.
Whereas the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that let the issue be looked into by the Government, keeping in view the larger public interest of everybody and more particularly the users of the milk and the benefits to be derived therefrom.
It appears that even otherwise also whether a parallel structure should be permitted or not and whether such is to result into adverse effect on the existing structure or to result into benefits of the end-users, keeping in view the larger public interests etc., essentially are the questions to be decided by the competent authorities at the highest level.
The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the present petition shall be treated as the representation and the matter shall be examined, keeping in view of the related aspects and appropriate decision shall be taken after giving opportunity of hearing to one representative of all the petitioners and the representative of respondents No.2 and 4 as well as other Governmental agency, if they are so involved in such policy matters.
Hence, it is observed and directed that the State Government shall examine the aspects in light of the declaration made by the learned Additional Advocate General and shall take appropriate decision, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. It is also observed that such decision, which may be taken, shall be without prejudice to the rights of either party to challenge the same before appropriate forum, if otherwise permissible in law.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
4.2.2010 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod Top