Bombay High Court
WP/9885/2026 of SIDHESHWAR DHUDH SANKALAN KENDRA THROUGH RAJENDRA ALIAS YOGESH DAULAT JADHAV Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 WRIT PETITION NO. 9885 OF 2026 SIDHESHWAR DHUDH SANKALAN KENDRA THROUGH RAJENDRA ALIAS YOGESH DAULAT JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patekar
1 901wp9885.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO. 9885 OF 2026
SIDHESHWAR DHUDH SANKALAN KENDRA THROUGH RAJENDRA
ALIAS YOGESH DAULAT JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patekar Narendra B
AGP for Respondents/State : Dr. Kalpana Patil Bharaswadkar …
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 13.10.2026.
PER COURT :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 08.07.2026 and 10.07.2026 passed by respondent No. 3, Designated Officer Cum Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Maharashtra State, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, by virtue of which the license of Milk Dairy of the petitioner has been suspended and he has been directed to close his business.
2. According to the petitioner during the pendency of the present Writ Petition the Lab Report in respect of the sample taken from his Dairy has been received, therefore, in view of the statutory remedy available to him under the Food Safety and Standards Act, he proposes to avail that alternate remedy. However, due to filing of the present Writ Petition, there appears to have some delay occurred in filing the appeal. Since the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present Writ Petition, the appellate Court may consider the fact that the petitioner was bona fide 2 901wp9885.26.odt pursuing the remedy before this Court, while condoning the delay.
3. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. The appellate authority may pass appropriate order without being influenced by the passing of aforesaid order by this Court.
4. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) Mahajansb/