Disposed

Fal Sabji Kreta -Vikreta Vyapa v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2008CW/10449/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single Judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the allotment of shops at Muhana Mandi. The Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner-Sangh could not continue functioning from the de-notified Lal Kothi Mandi. Respondents were directed to complete the allotment process within three months in conformity with the Division Bench decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner-Sangh members directed not to function from Lal Kothi Mandi; respondents directed to complete allotment process within three months.

Fal Sabji Kreta -Vikreta Vyapa Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

 SBCWP 10449/2007.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

¶4

O R D E R

¶5

Fal Sabji Kreta Vikreta Vyapar Sangh Versus

¶6

State and ors.

¶7

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10449/2007

¶8

Date of Order : 13/02/2008.

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶11

Shri Sunil Samdaria for the petitioner. Shri Bharat Vyas, Addl.Advocate General for the State. Shri Inderjeet Singh for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The writ petition has been filed by Fal Sabji Kreta Vikreta Vyapar Sangh with the prayer that respondents be directed to allot shops in terminal market at Muhana Sabji Mandi to the members of the petitioner-Sangh.

¶15

This Court, upon hearing arguments on 11/1/2008 directed the respondents not to disburb the Mashakhors having license of traders category till allotment of the shop is made to them and it was expected that the respondents shall complete the allotment process within a period of three months. The petitioner filed an application with the prayer that respondents be directed

¶16

 SBCWP 10449/2007.

¶17

¶18

to disclose the price and size of the shops to be allotted.

¶19

Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the interimorder passed aforesaid is at variance with the order passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1258/2007 (Jaipur Aloo Aratia Sangh Vs. State of Raj. and ors.) wherein the court made it clear that Lal Kothi Mandi shall stop functioning from 1/1/2008 as already directed by the State Government earlier.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that de-notification of the Lal Kothi Mandi and simaltaneous notification of Muhana Mandi proceeds on the assumption that the shops have been constructed and allotted to the traders whereas the fact is that the notification for inviting applications for allotment of shops from the respondents was itself issued on 1/1/2008. The interim-order passed by this court directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to function from Lal Kothi Sabji Mandi is therefore just and reasonable.

¶21

So far as the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents be directed to allot the shops in Muhana Mandi and further that they be directed to disclose the

¶22

 SBCWP 10449/2007.
3

¶23

price and size of the plot is concerned, that stands redressed because the respondents have now invited applications for such allotment vide notification dated 1/1/2008. And, in para 6 of reply to the application, the respondents have come out with the plea that the shops/plots would be allotted strictly in accordance with the new allotment policy of 2005 as well as the directions/guidelines issued by the State Government. Further, the rates of the allotted plots would be charged from the successful allottees strictly as per the formula given in the new allotment policy of 2005 prescribed for the second phase of allottees. As regards the size of the plot, the respondents in their additional affidavit have given the approximate sizes of the plots to be allotted in the second phase according to which, area of big size of plot would be 30x80 feet, medium size would be 20x40 feet and small size would be 15x30 feet.

¶24

Argument that since so far the allotment has not been made at the Muhana Mandi, notwithstanding denotification of Lal Kothi Mandi Yard, the continuation of the petitioner to function from that Mandi is justified, cannot be accepted for two reasons : (1) members of the petitioner-Sangh on its own admission were not allotted any permanent shop and were merely allowed to work from open area in the Mandi Yard and (2)

¶25

 SBCWP 10449/2007.
4

¶26

their license being in trading category, they could trade only according to the condition of license. Some of the licenses which are on record as Annexure.4/1 to Annexure.4/9 enumerate condition of license that they will work and operate their business from the notified mandi area only. Now, the Lal Kothi Mandi Yard having been de-notified, contrary to the terms of license, they cannot insist upon continuing their business from such mandi yard, more particularly when the Division Bench in confirmity with the notification made by the State Government has made a specific direction that “Lal Kothi Mandi shall stop functioning from 1/1/2008 as already directed by the State Government earlier.“

¶27

On being asked, Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the process of allotment pursuant to the notification dated 1/1/2008 shall be finalised within three months from today and that statement being taken on record, the respondents are directed to complete the aforesaid process within a period of three months.

¶28

 SBCWP 10449/2007.

¶29

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in confirmity with the decision of the Division Bench that Lal Kothi Mandi shall stop functioning from 1/1/2008 and members of the petitioner-Sangh would also not be permitted to function therefrom.

¶31

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶32

anil

Fal Sabji Kreta -Vikreta Vyapa v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fal Sabji Kreta -Vikreta Vyapa v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yaduvendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramji Lal Goutam Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs Adj NO.2, Bundi and Ors.

Utv Software Communicacations Vs Shree Rajput Sabha and Ors.

Artisans Alliance Jawaja Beawa Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shyama Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.