The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a representation regarding the allotment of a mandi shop. The Court held that an order deciding the representation by the Secretary does not warrant interference, noting the petitioner's failure to deposit the required bid balance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36971 of 2018
Petitioner :- M/S Hari Kishan Murari Lal Respondent :- Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Archit Mandhyan
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order dated 21.8.2018 by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mathura.
The ground for challenge is that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 23567 of 2018 against a show cause notice for deposit of the remainder of the bid amount for allotment of mandi shop. This Court by order dated 13.7.2018 directed respondent no. 2 of the said writ petition, which is City Magistrate/ Chairman, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mathura to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. It is alleged that although there was a clear direction to the City Magistrate/ Chairman, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mathura to decide the representation, the representation has been decided by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mathura.
Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Mandi Samiti submits that the representation was presented before the Secretary as such the same has been decided by the Secretary. That apart on the merits it is to be noted that the petitioner made highest bid for allotment of shop for a sum of Rs. 18 lacs and odd in 2016, however, he deposited only Rs. 5 lacs and odd and the remainder amount was not deposited, therefore, a show cause notice was issued. Even today the petitioner is not able to impress upon the Court that he is in such financial condition that he would deposit the remainder for which the Court can consider his claim sympathetically.
It is own fault of the petitioner to make such a high bid whereas he was not in such financial condition to raise a bid to that extent which resulted in ouster of other bidders who were interested and could not be allotted the shop.
This being conduct of the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere merely on the ground that the representation has been decided by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mathura and not City Magistrate/Chairman, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mathura.
The writ petition has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.11.2018 Sunil Kr. Gupta
(Ajay Bhanot, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should interfere solely on the ground that the petitioner's representation was decided by the Secretary instead of the Chairperson despite a prior direction.
Whether the petitioner has established financial capacity to deposit the remaining bid amount as required for the allotment of the mandi shop.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Hari Kishan Murari Lal
Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad
2 Others
Abhinava Upadhya
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
