-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No,3757 of 2007 Shri Sopan Ramchandra Buchke ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary, Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee and ors. ...Respondents Shri V.B.Nighot for petitioner Shri C.J.Sawant, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.N.N.Bhadrashetye for respondent no.1. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 to 5. Mr.R.A.Thorat with Mr.P.J.Thorat for respondent nos. 6 to 81. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 14th February, 2008 14th February, 2008 14th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Collector, Mumbai City on 23rd January, 2007. The said order was passed on the objections raised by the petitioner dated 16th October, 2006. The objections were to the names of respondent nos. 6 to 180 being included in the voters list. They are A class traders and according to them they have paid the licence fees and have been issued the licences before the cut off date. 2. On the other hand, the case of the -2- petitioners is that the licences have been issued after the cut off date. 3. Whether the Market Committee had followed the Rules and Regulations while issuing the licenses or not is a matter which is pending before the Government in as much as the grievance of the persons identically situated as that of the petitioner was brought before this Court and this Court had recorded the statement of the State Government that the proceedings before the State Government would stand revived subject to the objections raised to its maintainability and/or otherwise so also fresh orders would be passed after hearing all concerned. 4. Shri Nighot does not dispute that controversy with regard to the licences is pending before the State Government. In such circumstances, there is no warrant for entertaining this petition which raises a challenge to the Collector’s order. It is also not necessary to decide any wider issue with regard to the powers of the Collector because of the directions that follow from the Director of Marketing and the State Govt. are being -3- implemented with regard to the finalisation of the voters list. Ultimately, the Collector undertakes this exercise after the Market Committee informs the Collector and provides him with the details regarding the licences issued etc. Therefore, there cannot be any further enquiry, more so when the matter is pending before the State Government. In case the petitioner so feels he can move the State Government and if such application is made even the State Government will consider his grievance, which I have no doubt in my mind would be done uninfluenced by the concerned authorities. Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)