vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION (L) NO.21 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION (L) NO.21 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION (L) NO.21 OF 2009 Akhil Bhartiya Mathadi, Transport and General Kamgar Union ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.S. Pakale for Petitioner Mrs.S.M. Kajale, AGP, for Respondent State Mr.S.P. Kadam for Resp. Nos.4 and 5 Mrs.L.S. Desai i/b Pallavi Divekar for Resp. No.2 Mr.S.D. Thokade for Resp. Nos.6 to 21 CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED: MARCH 23, 2009 MARCH 23, 2009 MARCH 23, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Vide order dated 2.5.2006, the Respondent Board passed an order allocating certain areas for operation of the Contractors which were employed as Mathadi workers. This order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition NO.658 of 2007 which cam be to disposed of vide order dated 26.7.2007 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government against the order keeping in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Mathadi Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act 1969 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act). It appears that thereafter another order was passed dated 27.9.2007 in relation to one M/s.Ganesh Daily Service, another contractor. Both these orders were the subject matter before the State Government which vide its order dated 25.9.2008 passed certain directions and the State cited the direction : 2 : given by the Board in relation to the allocation of space. 2. The legality and correctness of this order is questioned by the petitioner in the present petition primarily on the ground that the power vested in the State Government u/s 7(4) of the Act does not permit it to interfere in the day to day business of the Board and also that the said order is violative of principles of natural justice. We hardly find any merit in either contentions raised before us. Firstly the scope of the power of the Government is no more res integra. The principle of law has been clearly stated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1995 Ltd. & Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1995 Ltd. & Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1995 (1) Bom. C.R. 9. (1) Bom. C.R. 9. (1) Bom. C.R. 9. While with respect following the reasoning and the conclusions given by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment, we would further add that putting such restrictions on the areas may tantamount to interference in the fundamental rights available to the citizens. Furthermore, the State Government has not acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the direction issued by the Board vide its orders dated 18.3.2007 and 27.7.2007. 3. As far as the question of granting hearing to the petitioner is concerned, it is not in any way : 3 : violative of the principles of natural justice as well. No rights as such have been interfered with as it was a direction issued by the Board which clearly fell beyond the jurisdiction of the Board and violative of constitutional protections. The government vide order dated 25.9.2008 has modified the order to the extent of withdrawing the area allocation within the powers vested in it u/s 7(4) of the Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner intended to read the provisions of section 7(4) so as to mean that it is a restrictive power vested in the Government. We are unable to see any restriction either by specific language or by implied interpretation. It is the duty of the Board to obey the direction issued by the Government and particularly when such directions relate to a policy or basic protections available to persons in law. It cannot be termed as an interference in the day to day business of the Board. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Board for making appropriate submissions and if any representation is made to the Board we have not doubt that the Board will deal with the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (CHIEF JUSTICE) : 4 : (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)