WP/10919/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10919 OF 2010 VILAS HANMANTRAO BHANDARE V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRTA AND OTHERS ... Advocates appearing for : Petitioner : Shri S.B.Gastgar, Respondents 1 to 4 : Shri N.B.Patil, AGP Respondent 6 : Shri Sachin Deshmukh and Respondent 8 : Shri S.R.Jedhe ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & R.M.BORDE, JJ. Dated : December 10, 2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the appointment of respondents Nos. 6 to 8 in respondent No.5 Agriculture Produce Market Committee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment orders which were issued on 30.11.1999 were not found to be in accordance with the law by the Director of Agricultural Marketing, vide his order dated WP/10919/2010 2 20.1.2001. It is submitted that the orders issued in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are not in accordance with the mandate of Section 65 of the APMC Act read with Rule 100 of the Rules framed thereunder. It is, therefore, submitted that the appointment orders issued in favour of said respondents are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. We have heard Shri Gastgar, learned Advocate for the petitioner at length for about twenty three minutes. We have permitted him to read whatever documents he wanted to read. 5. We are constrained to say that in spite of arguing for about twenty three minutes, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us regarding the very first query put to him as regards locus of the petitioner to file the present Writ petition. He only argued that the petitioner was one of the persons appointed on 30.11.1999. It is further submitted that the petitioner has never joined the said post. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner is not in the employment of respondent No.5, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the appointment of respondents 6 to 8. 6. Apart from that, we find that a contention which has been raised on behalf of respondent No.6, that the present petition is a proxy petition filed at the behest of one Shri Vishwas Manohar Thete, who had challenged the promotion of respondent No.6 herein as a Secretary and lost WP/10919/2010 3 the litigation before this Court is of substance. It is stated that the petitioner is close relative of said Shri Thete and the petition has been filed at his instance so as to take revenge against respondent No.6 who has succeeded before this Court. Said statement is made on an affidavit and there is no denial by the petitioner to the said statement made by respondent No.6. 7. Apart from this it is to be noted that respondent No.6 herein had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.7501 of 2009 challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 therein dated 5.2.2008 restoring appointment of respondent No.5 therein as a Secretary. This Court by an elaborate and reasoned order found that respondent No.5 in the said petition was not entitled to be promoted as the Secretary and it was the petitioner therein (respondent No.6 herein) entitled to be promoted as a Secretary since he possesses all necessary qualifications. It has also been categorically found by this court in its order dated 18.7.2009 that on comparison of the qualification of respondent No.5 therein with the qualification of the petitioner therein (respondent No.6 herein) it could be found that said respondent No.5 was not eligible to be appointed as a Secretary and it was only the petitioner therein who was eligible to be appointed as a Secretary. 8. Said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court was carried in an appeal being LPA No.144 of 2009 before the learned Division Bench of this Court by said Shri Thete. The learned Division Bench of this Court by an elaborate and reasoned order dt. 20.10.2010 has in WP/10919/2010 4 unequivocal terms affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the LPA. 9. In that view of the matter, we find that when the learned Single Judge of this court has found that respondent No.6 herein was required to be appointed as a Secretary and the same view having been upheld by the learned Division Bench in LPA, even on the matter of judicial propriety it will not be permissible for this Court to reopen the said issue. 10. It is further to be noted that learned counsel who has filed the present Writ Petition was the counsel who has represented Shri Thete before the learned Single Judge so also in LPA before the learned Division Bench of this Court. 11. In that view of the matter, we find the petition, apart from holding any merit, is a proxy petition at the behest of person who has lost in the earlier round of litigation We, therefore, dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs, which are quantified at Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only/-). 12. Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate for respondent No.6 states that respondent No.6 is not interested in costs and same be paid to High Court Bar Library, Aurangabad. Shri Gastgar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner undertakes to deposit the said costs by Thursday dt. WP/10919/2010 5 16.12.2010 with the High Court Bar Library, Aurangabad. In that view of the matter, we direct the petitioner to deposit the costs on/or before 16.12.2010 and produce receipt thereof on record of this Court. 13. While dismissing the writ petition we direct the matter to be posted on 21.12.2010 only for compliance of the order as regards deposit of the costs. (R.M.BORDE,J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.) ... akl