Allowed

M/S Ashok Fruit Agency v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2010CWP/16730/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CWP No.16730 of 2009, the High Court allowed a petitioner's application for an agricultural market license. The Court set aside an impugned order denying the license due to alleged market congestion and directed the respondents to issue the license within two months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 16.10.2009; directed respondents to grant license to the petitioner within two months.

M/S Ashok Fruit Agency Vs Ut of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No.16730 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.16730 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 24, 2010

¶5

M/s Ashoka Fruit Agency

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Territory and another

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶11

Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amar Vivek, Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh

¶12

Mr. Abhinav Sod, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

PERMOD KOHLI, J.

¶14

Petitioner applied for the grant of license under Section 10 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 vide application dated 15.02.2007 and deposited an amount of Rs.5000/as security along with the application. Petitioner also furnished a guarantee as required under the procedure prescribed. The Committee vide its letter dated 04.07.2007 replied to the petitioner that application has been considered and cannot be accepted to till the re-construction of auction shed in Subzimandi, Sector-26, Chandigarh and the case is kept pending. On construction of the auction shed in Sector-26, the petitioner again requested for grant of licence vide his representation dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure P-4). Receiving no response, petitioner filed CWP No.13450 of 2009 before this Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 31.08.2009, whereby respondent-Market Committee was directed to decide the

¶15

CWP No.16730 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. Pursuant to the said direction the respondent-Market Committee has passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-9 in the present writ petition.

¶18

From perusal of the order it appears that the petitioner has refused licence firstly on the ground that no licence has been issued to anyone due to congestion in the Mandi and secondly on the ground of some complaint against the petitioner for running a business without licence. It is further stated that new licences would be issued when new proposed market committee in Sector-39 (West) become operational. The application of the petitioner was kept pending to be considered at this stage. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is ineligible for grant of licence. Only inhibition seems to be non-availability of space in the Mandi.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not asked for any space in the market, he has only applied for licence without allotment of any space or premises in the market. And thus, the plea of the respondent of congestion in the market is totally irrelevant and non-existent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he will not ask for any space in the present Grain Market if he licence is granted to him.

¶20

In view of above submissions, this petition is allowed. Order dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure P-9) is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to grant licence to the petitioner under Section 10 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961

¶21

CWP No.16730 of 2009

¶22

-3-

¶23

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to completion of all formalities and on furnishing of an undertaking by the petitioner that he shall not claim any allotment of space in the existing Subzimandi, Sector-26, Chandigarh.

¶24

24.08.2010 vcgarg

¶25

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶26

Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not?

M/S Ashok Fruit Agency v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ashok Fruit Agency v. Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Dass Falwaria (Died) through Lr'S Satinder Kumar Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Surinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

R R Bansal Contractors Vs Power Grid Corporation of India

Jatinder Kaushal @ Vicky Vs State of Punjab

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Awinahwanti Vs State of Haryana & Ors.