AGRICULUTRAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE v. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULUTRAL MARKETING & RURAL FINANCE
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- AGRICULUTRAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE Versus DIRECTOR OF AGRICULUTRAL MARKETING & RURAL FINANCE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR NAVIN K PAHWA for Appellant MR. JOSHI, ASSTT. GOVT.PLEADER FOR RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 MR PK…
Judgment
MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA ============================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?
To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?
Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- AGRICULUTRAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE Versus DIRECTOR OF AGRICULUTRAL MARKETING & RURAL FINANCE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR NAVIN K PAHWA for Appellant MR. JOSHI, ASSTT. GOVT.PLEADER FOR RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 MR PK JANI for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : ACTG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR. C.K.THAKKAR and MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA Date of decision: 04/11/1999 ORAL JUDGEMENT Admitted. Mr. P.K.Jani appears and waives service of notice of admission for respondent No. 2. Mr. Joshi, learned AGP waives service of notice of admission for respondent Nos.1 and 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.
8246 of 1999 on October 22, 1999. Being aggrieved by the order of removal passed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Financerespondent No.1- on October 5, 1999, the above petition was filed by respondent No.2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the present appellant before the learned Single Judge that statutory remedy of revision is available to the petitioner under Section 48 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 and hence, High court may not entertain Special Civil Application . The learned Single Judge upheld the contention and disposed of the petition but while disposing of the petition, the learned Single Judge directed that the petitioner will file a revision application within a period of fifteen days from the date of order and that "till the State Government decides the revision application, the impugned order passed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance shall remain stayed".
A serious grievance was made by the learned counsel for the appellant firstly on the ground that the order passed by the Director on October 5, 1999 and the petition was filed thereafter and the learned Single Judge granted relief on October 22, 1999 i.e. after seventeen days. Such an order could not have been passed which is of mandatory nature when the order was passed before more than two weeks. Secondly, it was contended that when the learned Single Judge did not entertain the petition by upholding the preliminary objection and directed the petitioner to approach the revisional authority, he ought not to have granted interim relief. Reliance was placed in this connection on State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal, AIR 1952 SC 12. It was submitted that even if the learned Single Judge intended to protect the petitioner for the time being, he could have granted interim relief for some time so as to enable the petitioner to file a revision application and to obtain appropriate order.
No direction, however, could have been issued to continue interim relief "till the State Government decides the revision application" depriving the revisional authority to apply his mind and exercise his power to grant or refuse interim relief. Mr. Jani for the original petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that discretion has been exercised by the learned Single Judge and this is not a fit case which requires interference by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and without entering into the merits of the matter, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted interim relief "till the State Government decides the revision application". Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are of the view that interest of justice will be met if interim relief is continued upto November 30, 1999 or till the revisional authority decides an application of interim relief.
We may observe that we are not expressing any opinion on merits of the matter and it will be open to the respective parties to raise all contentions before the revisional authority. For the foregoing reasons, LPA deserves to be partly allowed and is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. No order on civil application. (cid:9) (cid:9) --- parekh (cid:9) (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 — s. 48.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 04 Nov 1999. The bench was K M MEHTA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.