LATE BHAURAO MARKAD MATSHYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the petitioners in both these writ petitions are different and even respondent No.8 are different entities, since common questions based on similar facts leading to the passing of the impugned orders, which are also similar, the matters are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7 whereas learned Advocate Mr. A.B. Girase waives service for respondent No.8 in both the writ petitions. I have also heard learned Advocate Mr. M.U. Shelke on Civil Application No.11813/2021, seeking to intervene. At their joint request, the matters are heard and being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.