The High Court quashed the order cancelling vegetable dealers' allotment in the new mandi, holding the foundation was removed by a dismissed writ petition. Petitioners were directed to receive plots in the vegetable mandi.
The order dated 22.08.2017 quashed and declared non est; respondents directed to proceed with allotment letters within 7 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11355/2017
M/s Ganesh Kela Suppliers Through Its Proprietor Daya Ram S/o Shri Sesa Ram, Resident Of 106, Vargi Colony, Babu Rajendra Marg, Masuriya, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10862/2017
M/s Jagdish Birma Ram Through Its Proprietor Smt. Rekha W/o Shri Durga Singh, aged about 38 years, Resident Of VillageChokha, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11356/2017
M/s Amar Fruit Bhandar Through Its Proprietor Smt. Beena W/o Shri Murlidhar, Resident Of 11/369, Chopasni Housing Board Jodhpur.
(2 of 7)
[CW-11355/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11357/2017
M/s Bharat Aloo Bhandar Through Its Proprietor Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Daulat Singh, 12-130, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11361/2017
M/s Sunil Brothers Through Its Proprietor Shri Sunil S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Resident Of C-15, Ajeet Colony, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
(3 of 7)
[CW-11355/2017]
----Respondents
(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11363/2017
M/s Kishan Lal Ram Chandra Through Its Proprietor Kishan Lal S/o Shri Ram Chandra, C-15, Ajeet Colony, Raikabagh, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari Mr. Govind Suthar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/08/2019
This bunch of writ petitions comprises of six petitioners, who were having license to deal in vegetables, as a wholesaler and they have been operating in the present Mandi at Paota.
Before adverting to the issue involved, it will be necessary to give some historical background, which unfolds as under:-
In a bid to expand the existing bus stand at Paota, Jodhpur, the State Government, with the consensus of Krishi Upaj
(4 of 7)
[CW-11355/2017]
Mandi Samiti, RSRTC and all other concerned, decided to shift “Savitri Bai Fule Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal va Sabji), Jodhpur” (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paota Mandi’) to Bhadwasia. Accordingly, it was decided that vegetable dealers, operating in Paota, would be shifted in 30 bighas of land. It was also decided that such 30 bighas land would be bifurcated in plots of different sizes out of 323 shopkeepers, operating in Paota Mandi, the licensees dealing in vegetables would be allotted plots in vegetable mandi, to be developed on 30 bighas of land, whereas the licensees dealing in fruits, would be shifted to separate fruit mandi, to be developed on 11 bighas land near it.
It is to be noticed that in the present mandi at Paota, in all 323 licensees were having shops, which were bifurcated in the sense that on side of the mandi, 158 shops (spread in Blocks A, C, N, O, P, Q, R and S), 158 shops were being run by licensees dealing in vegetables, while on the other side, 165 shops (spread in Blocks E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M), licensees were broadly doing business of fruits (except a few).
When the respondent No.3 decided to allot plots in new Mandi at Bhandwasia, to the existing shop owners at Paota Mandi, it was decided to allot them plots on the area earmarked for vegetable and fruit mandis, based on their existing business at Paota. The petitioners were allotted plots in Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi, bearing in mind that though they were operating in the blocks comprising of dealers in fruits, but their license and nature of business was that of vegetables.
The petitioners have been allotted plots in the new Mandi, named as ‘Bhadvasia-Vegetable Mandi’, to which they were entitled to. However, respondent No.3, by way of the order
(5 of 7)
[CW-11355/2017]
impugned dated 22.08.2017, cancelled their allotments, on account of the interim order dated 11.03.2016, passed by the High Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2619/2016 (M/s. Nanak Ram Narayan Das Vs. State & Ors.)
Before proceeding further, it will not be out of place to reproduce the order dated 11.03.2016, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2619/2016 (Now, M/s. M. Althaf Shah & Brothers Vs. State & Ors.), which reads thus:
“Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application
also.
Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned counsel accepts notices
on behalf of the respondents.
List the matter on 18.3.16, as prayed. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur, undertakes that the allotment of the shops to the licensees, who are being shifted from Mandi Sub Yard, Paota, Jodhpur to the Main Mandi, Bhadwasia, Jodhpur, shall be made strictly in accordance with the Mandi Premises Transfer Policy-2013 (‘Policy-2013’), published by the State Government vide order dated 18.9.13 and six semi wholesalers, named by the petitioners,w who have applied for allotment of shops in the block of Wholesale Sabji Market shall not be allotted, the s hops in the said block, if they are not covered by the criteria laid down under the Policy-2013.“
It is pertinent that this Court has heard the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2619/2016, today. By a separate order of this date, the same has been dismissed, inter alia holding that the petitioner’s grievance he has been discriminated, is unfounded and untenable. Operative portion of the said order is being reproduced hereunder:-
(6 of 7)
[CW-11355/2017]
“In considered opinion of this Court, clauses (7) and (8) of the Transfer Policy of 2013 deals with the right of licensees carrying on their business in existing Mandi at Paora. According to the Policy of 2013, the petitioners as well as the respondents nos.7 to 12 have a right of allotment of plot/shop at new Mandi at Bhadwasia; however, as far as size of the plot is concerned, the Policy of 2013 neither throws any light nor does it have any provision governing Section 138 of the Act. Hence, if the respondents have decided to develop two separate Mandis and have decided to allot shops based upon their nature of business for the ease and convenience of the business, no fault can be found in such decision.
This being the position, this Court finds no substance in the petitioner’s petition, hence, the same is dismissed.”
The impugned order dated 22.08.2017, so also the stand of the respondents in the present writ petitions, leaves no scope of doubt that petitioners’ allotment in Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi were cancelled and they were ordered to be given shop in Bhadwasia-Fruit Mandi, essentially because of the interim order dated 11.03.2016, passed in SBCWP No.2619/2016 (M/s. M. Althaf Sha & Bros. Vs. State & Ors.).
(7 of 7)
[CW-11355/2017]
As a natural corollary of the dismissal of the writ petition No.2619.2016 (M/s. M. Althaf Shah & Brothers), the very foundation or edifice of the order under challenge goes; and, so also the impugned order.
All these writ petitions are thus, allowed. The order dated 22.08.2017, qua each of the petitioners, is declared non est and quashed.
The respondents shall proceed in furtherance of the allotment letters (in Bhadwasia Mandi) already issued to the petitioners. Needful be done within a period of 7 days from today, so as to smoothen the process of shifting.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
206, 219 to 223-skm/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment of plots in Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi is sustainable.
Whether the respondents are required to proceed with the allotment letters already issued to the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s M. Althaf Shah & Brothers Vs. State & OrsDistinguished¶78
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2619/2016 (M/s. Nanak Ram Narayan Das Vs. State & Ors.)
M/s M. Althaf Shah & Brothers Vs. State & OrsDistinguished¶89
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2619/2016 (M/s. Nanak Ram Narayan Das Vs. State & Ors.)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Ganesh Kela Suppliers
M/s Jagdish Birma Ram
M/s Amar Fruit Bhandar
M/s Bharat Aloo Bhandar
M/s Sunil Brothers
M/s Kishan Lal Ram Chandra
DINESH MEHTA
MANOHAR J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
