SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Bom) 1554

ANOOP V.MOHTA, Z.A.HAQ
National Seed Association of India – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. RAJEEV DHAWAN, Senior Counsel with Mr. H.S. CHANDHOKE, Mr. PRASHANT PAKHIDDEY, Mr. KOSHY JOHN, Mr. MANAV VOHRA & Mr. AKSHAY A. NAIK, Advocates for petitioners in all Writ Petitions.
Mrs. B.H. DANGRE, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3 in WP Nos. 3390/2009 and 2207/2008 and for Res. nos. 1 & 2 in WP No.2493/2010.
Mr. S.K. MISHRA, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent nos. 4 to 6 in WP Nos. 3390/ 2009 and 2207/2008.
Mr. B. MAYUR REDDY, Mr. A.C. DHARMADHIKARI & Mr. S.Y. BHUTADA, Advocates for Intervenors/respondent nos. 7 to 10 in WP No. 3390/2009 and for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in WP No. 2493/2010.

JUDGMENT

ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.:- The petitioners "the producers of the cotton seed" have challenged the statutes and notifications of the State of Maharashtra (the State) of "price control of cotton seed" in Maharashtra.

2. In W.P. 2207 of 2008 (AICBA v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), the petitioners challenged the validity of the Maharashtra Cotton Seed (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Ordinance, 2008 (the Ordinance) (published in the official Gazette on 23.05.2008) and Notification dated 23.05.2008 (the notification) fixing the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Bt. cotton seeds.

An interim order was passed on 27.06.2008 "...whenever the Ordinance is issued or legislation is evolved by the Legislature, State cannot shirk its responsibility to make good the loss, if any caused in the event such Ordinance or Legislation is held to be unconstitutional and is quashed and set aside by the Courts. In the present case, if the petition succeeds appropriate orders in this regard will be passed; however since the rule is made returnable on 20.08.2008, we are not inclined to stay the effect and operation of the impugned ordinance at this stage."

3. In W.P. 3390 of 20





















































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top