SUSHISKIT BEROJGAR KAMGAR SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA v. THE STATE OF MAH & Ors.

Heard Mr.Jadhav, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Dhakane, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2] Mr.Dhakane points out that respondent no.3 has filed caveat and till date, copy of petition is not served on respondent no.3. We have perused the order sheets and we accept the statement made by Mr.Dhakane. 3] The challenge is to order dated 6th October, 2010 appointing 2 10840-10-wp.odt respondent no.3 as sugar nominee. Said order is passed by respondent no.2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is, petitioner is a Co-operative Society and preferential claim for appointment as sugar nominee and entitlement of petitioner has not been considered and without recording any reason undue preference has been given to respondent no.3. 4] We have perused the impugned order. The impugned order does not show consideration of any other lawful claims. It is an order appointing respondent no.3 as sugar nominee until further orders. The matter has remained pending before this court for about two years. 5] We grant petitioner liberty to make representation to respondent no.2 within three weeks from today. If such representation is made, respondent no.2 shall consider that representation and if necessary, extend opportunity of hearing to petitioner as well as respondent no.3. Respondent no.2 shall take appropriate decision on the representation in accordance with law within a period of two months after making such representation. 3 10840-10-wp.odt 6] With these directions, petition is disposed of. No costs. [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] kbp/