IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT PETITION NO. 8112 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8112 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 8112 OF 2008. Ashok R. Joshi. .. .. Petitioner. Vs Mumbai A.P.M.C. .. .. Respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court’s or Judge’s orders appearances,Court ’s : orders or directions : and Registrar’s orders. : ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr Sandeep S. Salunkhe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr N.N. Bhadrashete, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr V. A. Sonpal, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 14.1.2009. DATED: 14.1.2009. DATED: 14.1.2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Perused petition. 3. The Petitioner was claiming Gala on the basis of the Licence and the Will executed by one Jagannath P. Bharvikar. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the A.P.M.C. in the year 2006. Having seen the impugned order and the reasons, one has to conclude that the application was rightly rejected by A.P.M.C. The allotment of Gala was to the person who was holding licence with the death of the licence holder, the right to hold licence came to an end. It was not a transferable licence. Hence, no right can be claimed on the basis of such licence. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mumbai Mumbai Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Agricultural Produce Market Committee & another vs. Sharafatullah Hafiz another vs. Sharafatullah Hafiz another vs. Sharafatullah Hafiz Inayatulla & others 2000 (3) Bom.C.R. 226 Inayatulla & others 2000 (3) Bom.C.R. 226 Inayatulla & others 2000 (3) Bom.C.R. 226 is misplaced. No legal right could be demonstrated by the Petitioner to claim Gala from A.P.M.C. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner makes a statement that within three weeks he would apply afresh for allotment of Gala in his own rights which the A.P.M.C. undertakes to consider on its own merit within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. The statements made in this behalf by both parties are taken on record. 5. In the result the petition is dismissed in limini. No order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)