Dismissed

M/S Balbir Singh and Sons. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2014CWP/9885/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner-Firm challenged denial of shop-site in new grain market due to non-production of verified M-returns. Court held it could not interfere as official certificate was missing but disposed petition with liberty to recall order and produce proof before Revisional Authority.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to move application before Revisional Authority to recall order and prove business transaction amounts.

M/S Balbir Singh and Sons. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.9885 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 21, 2014 M/s Balbir Singh and Sons .....Petitioner

¶3

versus

¶4

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.

¶6

Present Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶7

-.-

¶8

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

¶12

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner-Firm is a Commission Agent in the Old Grain Market, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda. The petitioner has been denied the shop-site in the new grain market, Goniana Mandi at concessional rate as an 'old licensee', on the ground that it did not fulfill the eligibility condition prescribed in Sub-Rule 3 (iii) of the Punjab Agricultural Marketing Board (Sales and Transfer of Plots) Rules, 1999, as amended in the year 2008.

¶14

To be precise, the petitioner is said to have not produced M-returns for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 20072008 to prove that it transacted business of more than Rs.5 lacs per annum. The rejection of the petitioner's claim has been upheld upto the Revisional Authority who too held as follows:-

¶15

“....... On perusal of the pleadings, I find that the Market Committee called the application for the allotment of plot on dated 10.01.2008;

¶16

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.10 15:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No.9885 of 2014

¶18

[2]

¶19

one of the conditions of allotment was that the firm should have transacted business of Rs.5 lacs per annum for three years preceding to the last date of the application for allotment of plots. The relevant years in this case are 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. As per rules the firm should have transacted the business for three years of Rs.5 lacs per annum as is proved by 'M' returns filed by the firm before the Market Committee. Admittedly, the firm filed the 'M' returns for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in which the business transacted was shown but these returns were not verified by the Secretary, Market Committee, Goniana. Moreover, the petitioner did not enclose any proof of business transaction for the year 2005-06. Therefore, the firm does not fulfill the condition of allotment of shop as it was necessary to show business transaction of at least Rs.5 lac for years 2005-06 also......”

¶20

(emphasis applied

¶21

It is contended that a certificate issued by the Market Committee, Guniana Mandi, was produced before the Revisional Authority to substantiate the petitioner's plea that it had transacted the business of the requisite amount during the above-stated years also.

¶22

Since no such certificate appears to have been produced before the Competent Authority or as an additional evidence before the Revisional Authority, we cannot interfere

¶23

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.10 15:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶24

[3]

¶25

CWP No.9885 of 2014

¶26

in the impugned order on this count. However, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the Revisional Authority to recall/modify its order and prove that the M-returns pertain to the business of more than Rs.5 lacs per annum transacted by it during the relevant years. If such an official record is produced by the petitioner alongwith the application, let the same be considered sympathetically and in accordance with law.

¶27

Ordered accordingly.

¶28

Dasti.

¶29

	[SURYAKANT] JUDGE
May 21, 2014	[LISAGILL]
Mohinder	JUDGE

¶30

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.10 15:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

M/S Balbir Singh and Sons. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Balbir Singh and Sons. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar and Anr. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors.

Mitlesh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Metro Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pyare Lal Vs Haryana State

Mam Raj Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Balwan Singh Lohan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.