17.wp.766.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.766 OF 2009 Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.M.S. Topkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for respondent Nos.1,4 & 5. Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr.Tushar Sonawane, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.S.K. Shinde, Advocate i/b. Mr.Sagar Kasar, Advocate for respondent No.7. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. The order of the District Deputy Registrar which is challenged in the Petition is a innocuous order. Whether to grant a licence to a person to work as a Hamal or other market functionary is in the discretion of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. That discretion is controlled 17.wp.766.09 2 by the APMC Act and Rules framed thereunder. If according to the present petitioner, some persons have been refused to grant licence then the Forum for them to challenge that order is provided by the A.P.M.C. Act. A Writ Petition for that purpose cannot be entertained. The District Deputy Registrar also cannot issue general directions in that regard. Petition is totally misconceived and is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)