PDP 27-WP-12802-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12802 OF 2026 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 PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.09.30 09:54:56 +0530 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