Bombay High Court
GULAB SOPANA GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS DEPT OF MARKETING AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed the State to decide the pending stay application and appeal within six weeks, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, a registered lessee of market stalls (Gala Nos. 33 and 34) in Mahatma Phule Market Yard, learned in February 2025 that the stalls had been transferred to other respondents without notice. He challenged the transfer under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, but his application was rejected. He then filed a statutory appeal under Section 52B of the same Act, together with a stay application, on 4 December 2025. More than eight months elapsed without the State taking any action on the stay or appeal, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking a direction that the State decide the matters within a fixed period. The High Court ordered the State to decide the pending stay application and appeal within six weeks of the order and disposed of the writ petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct the State to decide a pending stay application and statutory appeal under Section 52B of the APMC Act within a specified time-frame.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- lease
- market yard
- APMC Act
- Section 43
- Section 52B
- stay application
- statutory appeal
- procedural delay
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
407- WP-11720-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11720 OF 2026
Gulab Sopana Gore ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Thr Its Dept of Marketing & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr Rushikesh Salunkhe, i/b Aadesh M Patil, for Petitioner.
Mr A R Deolekar, AGP, for Respondent-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 10th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Heard Mr Salunkhe, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.
Deolekar learned AGP representing the Respondent - State.
2. The Petitioner is the lawful allottee and registered lessee of Gala Nos. 33
and 34 situated at Mahatma Phule Market Yard, Chakan, Taluka Khed,
District Pune, pursuant to registered lease deeds dated 29th August 2003
executed in his favour by Respondent No.3-Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,
Khed, for a period of ninety-nine years. On 19th February 2025, when the
Page 1 of 3
Shivgan
407- WP-11720-2026.DOC
Petitioner approached Respondent No.3 for renewal of his licence, he learnt
for the first time that the said Gala Nos. 33 and 34 stood transferred in the
names of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, without any notice or opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner thereupon invoked the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2-
Director of Marketing under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 ('APMC
Act'), challenging the legality of the said transfer. By order dated 20th
November 2025, Respondent No.2 rejected the Petitioner's application.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred statutory Appeal No.58 of 2025
under Section 52B of the APMC Act before Respondent No.1-State of
Maharashtra on 4th December 2025, together with a stay application
seeking interim protection pending disposal of the Appeal.
4. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondent No.1 to
take up, hear and decide the pending Stay Application and Appeal No.58 of
2025 within a time-bound period, contending that despite reminder
applications dated 22nd July 2026 and 5th August 2026, neither the Stay
Application nor the Appeal has been taken up for consideration for more
than eight months from the date of its filing.
5. Considering the averments made in the Petition and the reliefs sought,
Respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the Petitioner's Stay
Application and Appeal No.58 of 2025, pending under Section 52B of the
APMC Act, within a period of 6 weeks if not already decided from the date
Page 2 of 3
Shivgan
407- WP-11720-2026.DOC
on which this order is communicated to it. In case Respondent No.1
requires any information or documents necessary for deciding the Appeal, it
is at liberty to call for the same from Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
6. Keeping all the contentions of the parties open, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
SHAMBHAVI
NILESH
SHIVGAN
Digitally signed by
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
SHIVGAN
Date: 2026.09.16
12:17:58 +0530
Page 3 of 3
Shivgan
Checking your session…