Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade vs Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market & ... on 7 December, 2011
36. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the APMC thus
itself having taken a stand that the respondent no.5 herein was not eligible for
allotment of large Gala having not satisfied the norms suggested by the learned
commissioner and this Court directing the APMC by an order dated 4 th March
2003 that as and when 12 more Galas were constructed by the APMC, the 3
applicants including the respondent no.5 should be considered in accordance with
law and as per the guidelines laid down by the learned commissioner, the APMC
has considered the application of the respondent no.5 illegally and allotted large
Gala i.e.F-158 to the respondent no.5 contrary to the norms suggested by the
learned commissioner and also contrary to the order dated 4 th March 2003 passed
by the Division Bench of this Court and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade (supra).