/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4101 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2220 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4101 OF 2001 Narayan Nivrutti Shinde ...Petitioner V/s. Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Anr. ...Respondents Shri.V.A. Gangal with Ashok Gade i/b. M.M. Vashi for Petitioner. Shri.Y.R. Naik for Respondent No.1. ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.7077 OF 2003 Shri. Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade ...Petitioner V/s. Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Ors. ...Respondents Shri.P.S. Dani i/b. Surel S. Shah for Petitioner. Shri.Y.R. Naik for Respondent No.1 to 3. Shri.A.I.I. Patel AGP for Respondent No.4. Shri.V.A. Gangal with Ashok Gade i/b. M.M. Vashi for Respondent No.5. / 2/ CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : 26th FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By both these petitions, direction is sought in relation to the same Gala of A.P.M.C. Market, Vashi and, therefore, both these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 2. Writ Petition No.4101 of 2001 is filed by one Narayan Nivrutti Shinde for direction to the Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee to hand over to him possession of Gala No.F-158. Shinde had earlier filed Writ Petition No.6414 of 1999. That petition came to be disposed of by the order dated 25/08/2000. That order reads as under:- “1. The Respondent No.1 agrees to give the Petitioner one large gala in fruit market on priority basis as and when available. 2. In view of the above statement the Petitioner / 3/ applies for withdrawal of the petition.” 3. It appears that the Gala was allotted by the Market Committee. It appears that petitioner Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade had filed an appeal before the Director of Agricultural Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune which was registered as Appeal No.40/2000 in relation to the allotment of large Gala to him. By order dated 13/02/2001, the Joint Director of Market Maharashtra State, Pune directed the matter to be placed before the Market Committee for necessary action. That order was challenged by the Market Committee before the Director. In that appeal, the Director of Market Committee directed the Market Committee to allot one large Gala to Gavade, because according to the Director, he appears to be entitled to the allotment of a large Gala. It appears that pursuant to order of the Director that Gala was granted to the said Gavade. But in view of order passed by this Court quoted above that allotment was cancelled and, therefore, Gavade has filed Writ Petition No.7077 of 2003, challenging the order of the Market Committee cancelling allotment of the Gala in his favour and giving possession of that Gala to him because now the Market / 4/ Committee has allotted the Gala to Shinde. 4. Now it is clear that the Market Committee has only one large Gala available with them. There is order passed by this Court directing the Market Committee to allot one large gala on priority basis to Shinde. Therefore, allotment in favour of Shinde is made in compliance of the order passed by this Court. As there is only one large Gala available, the Market Committee had no option but to cancel the allotment made in favour of Gavade to comply with the order passed by this Court. Therefore, really speaking we do not find fault with the action of the Market Committee of cancelling allotment of Gala which was made in favour of Gavade. On behalf of Market Committee, at the hearing, it was submitted that the Market committee has two small Galas available with it. The Market Committee can allot two small galas to Gavade who has been held entitled for the allotment of one large Gala. 5. The learned counsel for Gavade took time to take instructions whether Gavade is willing to accept two small galas in place of one large / 5/ gala. After taking instructions, he stated that he is not willing to take two small galas in place of one large Gala. As we find that the action of the Market committee which is challenged in Gavade's petition is in compliance with the order passed by this Court, no fault can be found with that action of the Market Committee. Writ Petition No.7077 of 2003 filed by the Gavade, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 6. As there is admittedly the allotment order in favour of the petitioner Shinde in Writ Petition No.4101 of 2001, the Market Committee will have to hand over possession of that Gala to Shinde. The Writ Petition No.4101 of 2001, therefore, succeeds and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause(a). No order as to costs. 7. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner Gavade, he is given eight weeks' time to hand over the possession of the Gala to the Market Committee so that the Market Committee hands over that Gala to the Petitioner Shinde. Considering that petitioner Gavade is in / 6/ possession of that Gala, he is granted eight weeks time to hand over the possession to the Market Committee subject to the conditions that within a period of two weeks from today, he files undertaking in this Court, undertaking to this Court that if he is unable to get appropriate orders from the superior court within eight weeks, he will hand over possession of the Gala to the Market Committee at the expiry of the period of eight weeks. If he does not file an undertaking within two weeks, the Market Committee shall take coercive steps to take possession of that Gala. 8. In view of disposal of Writ Petition 4101 of 2001, nothing survives in the Civil Application. The civil application is disposed of accordingly. ( D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)