Allowed

M/S Satnam Das Bhairu v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2008CW/226/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of nine identical writ petitions challenging the cancellation of trading licences under the Rajasthan Agriculture Market Produce Act. The High Court held that cancelling licences for failing to occupy auctioned sheds was arbitrary and quashed the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 23.6.2005 cancelling the licenses of the petitioners is quashed and set aside.

M/S Satnam Das Bhairu Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

::ORDER::

¶3

1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.226/2008
(M/s. Satnam Das Bhairu Mal Vs. State of
Raj. & Ors.)

¶4

2.S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10420/2007
(M/s. Babu Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)

¶5

3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.142/2008
(M/s. Merajuddin Vs. State of Raj. &
Ors.)

¶6

4. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.179/08
(M/s. Mehruddin Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

¶7

5. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.344/08
(M/s Tirath Das Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)

¶8

6. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.342/08
(M/s. Abdul Wahid Vs. State of Raj. &
Ors.)

¶9

7. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.894/08
(Dulanamal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)

¶10

8. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1154/08
(M/s. Rajendra Subzi Bhandar Vs. State of
Raj. & Ors.)

¶11

9.S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.893/08
(Kishan Chand Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)

¶12

 Date of order : 6/2/2008.

¶13

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶14

Shri Sunil Samandaria for the
petitioners.

¶15

Shri Inderjeet Singh for the respondents.
***

¶16

These nine writ petitions which
are identical in nature are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
Petitioners seek to challenge the similar
orders passed in respect of each of them
on 23.6.2005 whereby their licences
issued in terms of Section 15 of the
Rajasthan Agriculture Market Produce Act,
1961 and Rule 70 of the Rules framed
thereunder were cancelled.

¶17

Shri Sunil Samandaria, learned
counsel for the petitioner has aruged
that the petitioners were issued
permanent licence in the category of
'trader' under Rule 69 of the Rajasthan
Agriculture Market Produce Rules, 1963.

¶18

Their licences have been cancelled merely
on the premise that they have failed to
occupy the shop auctioned to them in the
mandi premises even though they
participated in the auction proceedings
and gave highest bid in respect of the
shop. The learned counsel argued that the
impugned order dated 23.6.2005 has been
passed pursuant to the direction issued
by the Director, Agriculture Marketing
Board, Government of Rajasthan dated
17.10.1996 which in turn has been issued
pursuant to the circular dated 7.6.1995.
It was argued that validity of that
circular was challenged before the
division bench of this Court at the

¶19

Principal Seat and the said circular was
declared illegal and ultra vires of the
provisions of the Constitution in DB SAW
No.1142/2000 M/s. Ved Prakash & Co. Vs.

¶20

State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2002(3) WLC

¶21

207. It was argued that the action of the
respondents in cancelling the licence of
the petitioners deserves to be declared
illegal and unconstitutional. The learned

¶22

counsel therefore prayed that the same
may be set aside.

¶23

On the other hand, Shri Inderjeet

¶24

Singh,learnedcounselforthe

¶25

respondents argued that the petitioners
participated in the auction proceedings
and their bid was highest, consequently,
he was allotted masha khor shed vide
allotment letter dated 8.6.1995 @
Rs.2000/- per month. The petitioners

¶26

neither paid the allotment fee nor

¶27

occupied the shed. It was thereafter that
initially charge-sheets were issued to

¶28

the petitioners and when they did not

¶29

submit any satisfactory reply, the

¶30

licence of the petitioners was cancelled.
The learned counsel for the respondents
prayed that these petitions be dismissed.

¶31

Having heard learned counsel for

¶32

the parties and perused the record, this
Court finds that the sole reason on the
basis of which the licence of the
petitioners has been cancelled is the
fact that the shops/sheds were allotted
to them pursuant to auction proceedings
and since the petitioners failed to
either deposit the requisite fee/charges
and occupy the same, the licence of the
petitioners was cancelled. The impugned
order dated 23.6.2005, has been issued on
the basis of the order dated 17.10.1996
passed by the Director, Agriculture
Marketing Board, Government of Rajasthan
which in turn is based on the earlier
circular dated 7.6.1995 issued by the

¶33

same Directorate. Circular dated 7.6.1995

¶34

having been quashed and set aside
pursuant to the judgment in M/s. Ved
Prakash (supra), consequential circular
also no longer holds good. Even
otherwise, the learned counsel for the
respondents has not been able to point
out any provision either from the Act or
the Rules of 1970 which makes possession/
allotment of the shop in the mandai yard
asaconditionprecedentfor

¶35

issuance/renewal of the licence.

¶36

In the circumstances, the action of

¶37

the respondents in seeking to cancel the
licence of the petitioners merely on
account of the fact that they failed to
occupy the allotted shed, is nothing but

¶38

an arbitrary and colourable exercise of
power.

¶39

In the result, the writ petitions

¶40

succeed and are allowed in the aforesaid
terms. The impugned order dated 23.6.2005
is quashed and set aside. Consequences to
follow.

¶41

 (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶42

RS/-

M/S Satnam Das Bhairu v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Satnam Das Bhairu v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Kailash Chand Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Orienral Insurance Co. Ltd. and Vs Chaitny Prakash Bansal andANR

Satyendra Singh Jain Vs Ramsharan Sharma

Ruksana Vs the Addi District Judge No 3

Fazal Noor Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Chauthi Devi and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.