Bombay High Court
ONION POTATO TRADERS ASSOCIATION THROU. NARAYAN G JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE DEPT OF MARKETING AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the circular remains valid and enforceable.
Summary
The Onion Potato Traders’ Association filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a Government of Maharashtra circular dated 15 April 2026 that imposed a 50 kg weight limit for loading and unloading bags, seeking its quash or a mandamus directing phased implementation. The petition argued that the circular should be treated as merely directory, not mandatory. The Court noted that the weight‑limit policy had been in place since 2010 to protect labourers, but compliance had been poor, and the circular was issued in the larger public interest. It held that the matter was a policy decision and there was no sufficient ground for judicial interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the 15 April 2026 government circular imposing a 50 kg weight limit is mandatory or merely directory.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ under Article 226 to quash or modify the circular.
- Whether the petition is maintainable given the policy nature of the circular.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ petition
- Government circular
- Mandatory vs directory
- Public interest
- Labour welfare
- Weight limit
- Policy decision
- Judicial review
Judgment
PDP 27-WP-12802-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
WRIT PETITION NO. 12802 OF 2026
2026.09.30
09:54:56 +0530
Onion Potato Traders’ Association .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat i/by Aditi S. Naikare for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. K. B. Dighe,
Additional Government Pleader and Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Rahul D. Oak i/by B. S. Mahamulkar (through V.C.) for
Respondent No.5.
Ms. Bharati Patil for Respondent No.6 – Union.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The instant Writ Petition is preferred, inter alia, praying for
following substantive reliefs: -
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an
appropriate Writ, Order or direction for quashing and
setting aside the Impugned Government Circular dated
15 April 2026 issued by the Respondent No.1 through
the Department of Marketing, Government of
Maharashtra.
(b) In the alternative to prayer clause (a) above, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
1
PDP 27-WP-12802-2026.doc
Respondent authorities to apply the 50 kgs' weight limit
for unloading in a phase-wise manner across the State
of Maharashtra uniformly by setting up a mechanism in
accordance with law after consultation with all
concerned stakeholders;
(c) In the alternative to prayer clauses (a) and (b) above,
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue
an appropriate writ, order, direction declaring that
Impugned Circular dated 15 April 2026 accordingly
ought to be read down to mean that the directions
contained in the Circular are only directory and not
mandatory;”
2. From the record, it appears that measures have been
taken since 2010 by the Respondents to ensure that the weight of the
bag involved in loading/unloading does not exceed 50 kg. We find
that, as a policy decision, the measure was introduced to facilitate
and ameliorate the hardships faced by labourers, and to encourage all
traders to ensure that the weight of the bag involved in
loading/unloading does not exceed 50 kg. What we find is that since
2010 even though the Respondents have formulated the policy but in
letter and spirit the same has not been complied with. Now the entire
insistence is that the impugned Circular may be treated as directory
instead of mandatory. The impugned Circular is issued in the larger
public interest. We find that there is no plausible reason to interfere
in the writ jurisdiction in such policy matter.
3. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit. The same is
accordingly Dismissed.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.