Bombay High Court
Chandrapur District Gitti Khandan ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 20 March, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 wp6996.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6996/2018
Chandrapur District Gitti Khadan Labour
Co-Op. Society Federation, Regn. No.102,
through its President, Mr. Ramnath Baliramji
Kalsarpe, aged 62 years, Occ. Business,
Having its office at Knnamwar Bhavan,
Dukan Kr. 10, Old Warora Naka, Behind
Patrakar Bhavan, Chandrapur-442401 .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Department of
Cooperative, Textile & Handloom,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Society, Chandrapur.
3. Chandrapur District Labour Contractor
Cooperative Society Federation,
Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. R. Vyas, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A. V. Palshikar, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. S. S.Ghate, Advocate for respondent no3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED :- 20.03.2019
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties, having regard to the limited prayer made in this petition.
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 23:31:35 :::
2 wp6996.18.odt
2. Initially, Mr. Ghate, learned counsel for the intervenor/respondent no.3, sought adjournment because he was held up before another Bench. However, later Mr. Ghate appears before this Court and accordingly, we have heard him also.
Mr. Ghate submits that the petitioner has not been recognized to be cooperative society federation by respondent no.2 and it is only intervenor/respondent no.3, which has been so recognized by the respondent no.2 and as such the petitioner would have no right of hearing, whatsoever, in the present case. He further submits that by the said representation, the petitioner is only claiming fixation of contract rates of the proportion suggested by the petitioner, but, a Public Interest litigation, in this regard, is already pending adjudication before another Bench of this Court.
3. The grounds of opposition raised by the learned counsel for respondent no.3 are something which are required to be considered appropriately by respondent nos.1 and 2 and if respondent nos.1 and 2 find that there is substance in this ground, there is nothing which would prevent respondent nos.1 and 2 from rejecting the representation. But, that does not mean that respondent nos.1 and 2 should not bestow any attention to the ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 23:31:35 ::: 3 wp6996.18.odt representations and decide them on their own merit, one way or the other.
4. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition and it is allowed accordingly. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to decide the representation dated 13.07.2018 and also other representation dated 08.08.2018, within a period of two months from the date of order, on their own merit and in accordance with law. Respondent no.3-intervenor would be at liberty to seek permission of respondent nos.1 and 2, for intervention in the matter.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 23:31:35 :::