Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 11]

Bombay High Court

Bipinchandra K. Parekh And Ors vs The Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market ... on 3 July, 2019

Author: A.M. Badar

Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, A.M. Badar

                                                                    (4)WP-13046-16.doc


rkmore

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             WRIT PETITION NO.13046 OF 2016


          M/s. Sugar Supply Co. & Ors.                ]       ..Petitioners.
                           v.
          The Mumbai Agricultural Produce             ]
          Market Committee, Mumbai & Ors.             ]       ..Respondents.


                                              WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO.12444 OF 2016


          Kishor Champaklal Mody                      ]       ..Petitioner.
                           v.
          The Mumbai Agricultural Produce             ]
          Market Committee, Mumbai & Ors.             ]       ..Respondents.


                                              WITH
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1422 OF 2019
                                               IN
                             WRIT PETITION NO.12444 OF 2016


          Mumbai Agricultural Produce market Committee]..Petitioners.
                           v.
          Kishor Champaklal Mody                      ]       ..Respondent.




                                                                                        1/4



         ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019                 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 04:45:54 :::
                                                       (4)WP-13046-16.doc



                                WITH
                    WRIT PETITION NO.12445 OF 2016


 Nimesh Mahendra Dhirwani               ]       ..Petitioner.
                  v.
 The Mumbai Agricultural Produce        ]
 Market Committee, Mumbai & Ors.        ]       ..Respondents.

                                WITH
                    WRIT PETITION NO.12529 OF 2016


 Bipinchandra K. Parekh & Ors.          ]       ..Petitioners.
                  v.
 The Mumbai Agricultural Produce        ]
 Market Committee, Mumbai & Ors.        ]       ..Respondents.


                                WITH
                    WRIT PETITION NO.13073 OF 2016


 Navi Mumbai Merchants Chamber          ]       ..Petitioner.
                  v.
 The Mumbai Agricultural Produce        ]
 Market Committee, Mumbai & Ors.        ]       ..Respondents.

 Mr.Girish Godbole a/w Mr.Kaustubh Gupte i/by Mr.Ashish
 Mehta for Petitioners in WP No.13046/2016.

 Ms.Subhasree Chatterjee i/by M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co.
 for Petitioners in WP No.12444/2016, WP No. 12445/2016 and
 WP No.13073/2016.

 Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete, for Respondent No.1 in all matters.

                                                                          2/4



::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019            ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 04:45:54 :::
                                                                (4)WP-13046-16.doc



                               CORAM :           INDRAJIT MAHANTY &
                                                 A.M. BADAR, JJ.
                               DATE      :       3rd July, 2019.

 P.C.


 1]      Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.


 2]      It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel

appearing for the APMC that Public Interest Litigation No.176 of 2014 challenging interim order dated 27 th June, 2014 passed in Appeal No.23 of 2014 and seeking further directions, is pending before this Court. It is further submitted that in the course of such Public Interest Litigation proceeding, it was stated before the learned Bench hearing Public Interest Litigation that State would carry out enquiry into the matter and it appears that such enquiry has been concluded and report has been submitted.

3] From the present batch of Writ Petitions, it appears that action has been initiated by Respondent No.2-Director of Marketing for recovery against the Petitioner. Based on the report of enquiry, various grounds have been raised by the Petitioner challenging the demands raised, including violation of principles of natural justice.

4] After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 04:45:54 ::: (4)WP-13046-16.doc best observed if this batch of cases are tagged with Public Interest Litigation No.176 of 2014 and placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for taking up the said matters together or sending the matter to any appropriate Bench for consideration together. Interim orders,if any, to continue.

          [A.M. BADAR, J]          [INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J]




                                                                         4/4



::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2019           ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2019 04:45:54 :::