GRUHLAXMI MAHILA BACHAT GAT vs ME. MAA. BHAVANI MAHILA AUDYOGIK UTPADAK CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY THR. ITS CHAIRMAN Advocate - YRJ LEGAL — IA/2019/2026
Case under Essential Commodities Act Section 227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010108962026
Filing Number
IA/6263/2026
Filing Date
04-03-2026
Registration No
IA/2019/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GRUHLAXMI MAHILA BACHAT GAT
Adv. YRJ LEGAL
Respondent(s)
ME. MAA. BHAVANI MAHILA AUDYOGIK UTPADAK CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY THR. ITS CHAIRMAN Advocate - YRJ LEGAL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
FRESH ADMISSION
HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)
AT 3.00 P.M.
AT 3.00 P.M.
HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION |
| 06-04-2026 | HIGH ON BOARD (HOB) |
| 01-04-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 27-03-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 26-03-2026 | HIGH ON BOARD (HOB) |
Orders
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the State Government's order that rejected the petitioner's fair price shop license application while granting relief to respondent No.4. The court found this course "patently illegal and in breach of fundamental principles of judicial process," as any opportunity to remedy deficiencies should have been extended equally to both parties. The court directed the State Government to hear and decide both parties' revision applications afresh with proper hearing opportunities within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the State Government's order that rejected the petitioner's fair price shop license application while granting relief to respondent No.4. The court found this course "patently illegal and in breach of fundamental principles of judicial process," as any opportunity to remedy deficiencies should have been extended equally to both parties. The court directed the State Government to hear and decide both parties' revision applications afresh with proper hearing opportunities within one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts