Batch of twenty writ petitions (lead: W.P.(C) 1111/2021, Darshan Lal & Ors.; also Smt. Meena Kumari, Smt. Nahid, Arman & Anr., Rahul Saini, Amir Gohar @ Akram & Anr., Sanjay Laumas, Mohd. Yusuf, Smt. Chanderwati, Rajni, Ms. Sofiya, Jahur, Mohd Sahid (two petitions), Mohd Yunus Pravez, Yusuf Azad, Ramesh Khera, Sushil Manocha, Deepak Khera and Mohd Yashin) before the High Court of Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), challenging the order dated 16.10.2020 of the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (DAMB) rejecting claims for allotment of shops/spaces at the Fruit and Vegetable Market, Ghazipur by traders/commission agents holding renewed 'B' category licences connected with the erstwhile Shahdara Market. Held: (i) neither the DAPM Act/General Rules 2000 framework nor prior proceedings (Jamunapar, W.P.(C) 3423/2001; Yusuf Azad, W.P.(C) 2009/2017) created any unconditional or indefeasible right, or enforceable legitimate expectation, of allotment merely from holding/renewal of a licence — licensing and allotment operate in distinct domains, allotment remaining subject to eligibility conditions (Sub-Committee Resolution dated 07.07.2009); (ii) the e-auction regime under Resolution No. 115/2015, following the Notification dated 02.09.2014 (deregulation), governs vacant shops at Gazipur Market, its validity having been upheld in Sabzi Traders (W.P.(C) 8690/2020) and affirmed by the Division Bench in APMC v. Sabzi Traders (LPA 335/2020), whose ratio squarely governs the batch; the Category-'A'/Category-'B' distinction is immaterial since Rule 15 governs both categories; (iii) the observations in DAMC v. Hukumat Rai (Civil Appeal No. 8267/2016) merely recognized the stand that Gazipur was intended for bona fide Shahdara licensees and cannot confer allotment rights dehors the eligibility conditions; (iv) Section 71 DAPM Act read with Rule 24 General Rules 2000 merely provide for intimation and correction of licence records 'subject to the terms and conditions of allotment of shop/plot', so reconstitution/change in constitution, substitution or inheritance creates no derivative right of allotment — derivative claims cannot travel beyond the original licensee's rights. Seeking a declaration of entitlement dehors the policy framework would fall beyond the permissible contours of Article 226 jurisdiction. Petitions dismissed.
