{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4013 OF 2009 Proposed Shriram Samarth Mascha Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Jalna, through its Chief Promotor Shri.Sadashiv Bhivsan Shirpure, R/o Peer Kalyan, Tq & Dist-Jalna PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Milk, Animal Husbandry & Fishery Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Dairy) Jalna 3. The Assistant Commissioner Fishery (Technical) Jalna RESPONDENTS 4. Jalna Machimar Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Jalna (Intervenor) ....... Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr.N.R.Solunke, Advocate for intervenor. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 29th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : {2} 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns a communication dated 30.05.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent declining to issue no objection certificate for registration of the petitioner society. 3. According to the petitioner society, one Peer Kalyan Tank is available at village Peer Kalyan for the society of fishermen and accordingly a proposal, in respect of issuance of a no objection certificate, came to be submitted to the 3rd respondent. 4. By the aforesaid impugned order, the 3rd respondent declined to grant no objection certificate to the petitioner on the ground that the aforesaid fishing tank had been given on contract to the intervenor society and consequently the intervenor society would be adversely affected in the event no objection is issued to the present petitioner society. The petitioner has tendered before us a document to indicate that the intervenor society is situated at a distance of 16 kms from the fishing tank and consequently is not entitled to be awarded the contract. Learned counsel for the intervenor has tendered before us a document to indicate that the distance, in fact, is less than 10 kms. In any event, such disputed question cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. It further appears that the constitution of the members of the petitioner society was changed and a fresh list of the members has been submitted. In the affidavit in reply of the 3rd respondent only a {3} vague reference is made to the impugned order i.e. in the event the no objection certificate is granted to the petitioner society, the intervenor would be adversely affected. At present, there is no existing or subsisting contract with the intervenor society in respect of the aforesaid Peer Kalyan tank. In the light of that, therefore, according to us, the reasons given by the 3rd respondent for rejecting the application of the petitioner society are unsustainable in law, as the reasons are not germane for the decision of the said application. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2009. We hereby remit the matter back to respondent No.3 for deciding the said application in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Government for considering the application for issuance of a No Objection Certificate. 6. We recall our order by which we had imposed a cost of Rs.15,000/- on the 3rd respondent. Respondent No.3 is entitled for refund of the said amount if deposited by respondent No.3. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp4013-09