AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Ms. Vinayak, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner for M/s. Thakkar Associates submits that this matter is of
the year 2003 and as on date no instructions are available. So advocate for Petitioner pleaded No instruction and requests the Court to pass
appropriate order.
The Petitioner appears to have approached this Court challenging the order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the A.P.M.C. rejecting the application
for licence for the reasons stated thereunder. The Petitioner appears to have been carrying out his activities and holding on godown where the
Market Committee had to move the appropriate authority for bringing about eviction and order of Eviction was passed wherefrom Appeal was
preferred to the concerned District Judge by way of Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2002 and some stay order was granted, as it is produced at page-23
of the petition.
This Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) on 10.11.2003 after recording elaborate reasons for issuing Rule, directed following:
3.1. Rule.
3.2. The learned District Judge, Mehsana shall take up the hearing of the appeal No. 28/2002 and shall decide the same as early as possible
preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.
3.3 The Petitioner is relegated to the remedy of preferring appeal u/s 27 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Committees Act against the
decision of the Market Committee denying renewal of the licence and such appeal shall be preferred within a period of two weeks from today.
3.4 In the event appeal being preferred by the Petitioner before the Director within the period as indicated earlier, the Director shall decide the
appeal in light of the observations made herein above and also in accordance with law and shall take the appropriate decision within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of the appeal.
3.5 Until the Director decides the appeal, it would be open to the Petitioner to continue to have business on the same terms and conditions as it
was doing prior to the decision of the Market Committee denying renewal.
3.6 It would be open to either side to move this Court for further modification and/or vacation of the order, in case the District Court decides the
appeal prior to the order passed by the Director.
In view of the submission made by Ms. Vinayak with regard to ''No Instruction'', this Court is of the view that Petitioner would be having now
no grievance or else, the counsel have instructions to prosecute this matter on merits. The counsel for the Petitioner has requested for passing
appropriate order. In my view, pronouncing on merits at this stage would adversely affect the Petitioner in case if his grievance is still surviving but
looking to the fact that he has not passed on any instructions to the advocate, this matter is required to be disposed of as the Petitioner appears to
have no more interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, this petition is disposed of as not been prosecuted at this stage. Liberty is reserved to
the parties to move appropriate application in this petition for reviving in case of difficulty in future.
With this observation, petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.