Allowed

M/S. Jagdish Sankhla and Company v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2019CW/6320/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that petitioner-vegetable traders, whose appeal was allowed by the Director, must be permitted to operate in a new vegetable mandi at Bhadwasia pending construction, instead of being ousted from the old mandis.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to operate in an open yard at Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi pending allotment of shops and construction; directed to allot plots in Vegetable Mandi within two months.

M/S. Jagdish Sankhla and Company Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6320/2017

¶3

M/s Jagdish Sankhla And Company, Sole Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Shri Jagdish Sankhla S/o Birma Ram, Resident Of Navoda Bera, Near Kadamkhandi, Village Chokha, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Director, Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶8

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Va Sabji), Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶9

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6179/2017

¶13

M/s Yasin Khan Yusuf Khan, Sole Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Shri Firoz Mohammed S/o Shri Yasin Khan Resident Of Gayon Ki Phatak, Udaimandir, Jodhpur.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶17

Director, Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶18

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Va Sabji), Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶19

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6180/2017

¶22

M/s Nirmala Madan Lal, Sole Proprietorship Firm Through Its Sole Proprietor Smt. Nirmala W/o Shri Madan Lal Resident Of A- 28, Vikas Colony, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

(2 of 16)

[CW-6320/2017]

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶28

Director, Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶29

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Va Sabji), Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶30

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6183/2017

¶33

M/s Chuhad Mal And Sons. Sole Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Shri Bhagwan Das S/o Shri Chuhadmal, Resident Of A-9-63 Paota B Road, Near Hanuwant Gardan, Jodhpur.

¶34

----Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶37

Director, Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶38

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Va Sabji), Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶39

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6198/2017

¶42

M/s Prakash Fal And Sabji Marchent, Sole Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Shri Prakash S/o Shri Murlidhar Aged 35 Years, Resident Of 17, Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶43

----Petitioner

¶44

Versus

¶45

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶46

Director, Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶47

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Va Sabji), Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶48

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶49

----Respondents

¶50

(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6217/2017

¶51

M/s Ganpati Fruit Company, Sole Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Shri Natwar Tak S/o Shri Kishan Lal Tak, Residency Of Ajeet Colony, Jodhpur.

(3 of 16)

[CW-6320/2017]

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶57

Director, Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶58

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Va Sabji), Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶59

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶60

----Respondents

¶61

(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6233/2017

¶62

M/s Mahadev Fal And Sabji Bhandari, Sole Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Shri Mohan S/o Daual Singh, Resident Of 17, Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶63

----Petitioner

¶64

Versus

¶65

State Of Rajsthan Through The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶66

Director, Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶67

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Va Sabji), Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶68

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶69

----Respondents

¶70

(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6439/ 2017

¶71

M/s Nisar Ahmed Lal Ahmed, Partnership Firm Through Its Partner Shri Rasid Ali S/o Shri Nisar Ahmed, Resident Of Gayon Ki Phatak, Udaimandir, Jodhpur.

¶72

----Petitioner

¶73

Versus

¶74

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶75

Director, Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶76

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Va Sabji), Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶77

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

(4 of 16)

[CW-6320/2017]

(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6440/2017

¶82

M/s Jai Kishan Multanram Bhati, Sole Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Shri Mahesh Bhati S/o Jai Kishan Bhati, Resident Of Imartiya Bera, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.

¶83

----Petitioner

¶84

Versus

¶85

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶86

Director, Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶87

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Va Sabji), Jodhpur, Through Its Secretary.

¶88

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶89

----Respondents

¶90

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari with Mr. Govind Suthar with Mr. Mohit Choudhary, for the petitioners. Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Somani with Mr. Vineet Dave, for the Applicants. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by Mr. Rajat Arora. Mr. S. S. Rathore. Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat. Mr. Vipul Dharnia.

¶91

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶92

Judgment

¶93

02/08/2019

¶94

I. A. No.01/2019 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6320/2017 :

¶95

An application has been filed by M/s Shivprakash Punaram Gehlot through its proprietor Shiv Prakash, seeking his impleadment in the present writ petition.

¶96

The applicant contends that he alongwith other eight persons have been shown at Serial No.41 to 49 of the provisional list of allottees dated 19.04.2018, prepared for allotment of plots to the

¶97

(5 of 16) [CW-6320/2017]

¶98

applicantsat Bhadwasia Mandi Vegetable and if the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, they are likely to be ousted from the list, hence, they are necessary party.

¶99

Indisputably, the petitioner, in the present writ petition is a licensee-dealer in vegetables, having shop in the Paota Sabji Mandi, which is evident from perusal of the license and the findings recorded by the Director in his order dated 05.12.2016.

¶100

As per the Policy of 2013, the allotment in new Mandi is firstly required to be made in favour of the persons, who are having shops in Paota Mandi as per Clause 3(7) of the Policy of 2013. In case some plots remain vacant, they are to be allotted to other dealers, operating in Paota mandi, but who are not having shops.

¶101

True it is, that the applicant and eight persons have been shown in the list of provisional allottees, but the fact remains that they are not having any shops in the Paota Mandi, for which their cases are required to be considered under clause 3 (8) of the Policy of 2013.

¶102

As such, applicant has no rival or competitive claim vis a vis the petitioner, who has vied for allotment under clause 3(7) of the Policy. Merely because the petitioner’s failure in the present writ petition may result in the applicant’s success, it does not give them a right to oppose their case as a respondent. The State as well as Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti are already there, as respondents to defend their stand. The applicant cannot be heard to support/substantiate the stand of the State.

¶103

That apart, the list aforesaid is provisional, is evident from the fact that the State has taken a stand that due to inadvertence, 9 persons’ claim could not be reckoned. The respondent No.3 has

¶104

(6 of 16)

¶105

[CW-6320/2017]

¶106

admitted that in light of the interim order passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, they were required to keep one shop for each of the petitioners vacant/reserved.

¶107

In this view of the matter, it is clear that nine shops which ought to be earmaked or kept vacant for the petitioners, could not be earmarked and the applicant and persons similarly situated to the applicant have been provisionally depicted in the list, which hardly creates any right in their favour. It is to be noted that the provisional list of merit, has a clear stipulation that the allotment in furtherance of the list will be subject to the present group of writ petitions. Had the respondents obeyed the interim order of this Court in the letter and spirit, surely, their names would not have been there in the list.

¶108

Hence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to implead the applicant as a party respondent.

¶109

However, since the rights of the applicant may be affected by any order passed in the present writ petitions, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the applicant to intervene.

¶110

The application stands disposed of.

¶111

ADJUDICATION OF THE WRIT PETITIONS :

¶112

These writ petitions have been filed by the above referred 9 petitioners with the following prayer:-

¶113

“i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to forthwith allot the shop treating it to be a Vegetable Trader at Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi yard.

¶114

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to immediately implement the order dated 05.12.2016 (Annex.14) passed by the respondent No.2 and permit the petitioner to construct

¶115

(7 of 16)

¶116

[CW-6320/2017]

¶117

the shop at Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi at the requisite place amongst 49 vacant shops.

¶118

iii) In the alternative, without prejudice to above, by an appropriate order or directions, the order and communication dated 14^th July, 2016 (Annex.9) treating it to be a fruit trader, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

¶119

iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶120

v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶121

Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to lay requisite factual backdrop, which led to allotment of these plots to the petitioner as well as the respondents nos.5 to 10 at Bhadwasia.

¶122

A Mandi known as Savitri Bai Fulle Krishi Upaj Mandi (Fal Sabji), Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as Paota Mandi) is situated at Paota adjacent to Roadways Bus Stand. With the growth of the city, it became necessary that the bus stand at Paota be expanded, hence, the State Government, in pursuance of the directions issued in a PIL, decided to shift the present Mandi at Paota to Bhadwasia and give the land held by Paota Mandi to RSRTC for expansion of the bus stand. Initially, the Mandi at Paota accommodated licensees of all kinds of vegetables and fruits as well, however, in the year 1993, it was decided to shift licensees of onion, potato and fruits to a new Mandi at Bhadwasia. In this process the licensee of such commodities shifted to new Mandi at Bhadwasia in the year 1995, leaving only wholesale

¶123

(8 of 16)

¶124

[CW-6320/2017]

¶125

traders of vegetables (other than onion potato) and some left out traders of fruits to continue with their business at Paota Mandi.

¶126

In the year 2013, after long deliberations, a high level meeting of various wings of the State Government was convened under the eigis of Addl. Chief Secretary, Urban Housing and Development Department and after thorough discussions on 7.2.2013, it was decided that the present licensees carrying on business at Paota would be shifted to Bhadwasia and the land of Paota Mandi would be handed over to RSRTC, while the land of RSRTC (depot) existing near the Bhadwasia Mandi would be handed over to Krishi Upaj Mandi for establishment/development of new fruit and vegetable Mandis.

¶127

The petitioners in the present writ petitions, have asserted that they are operating their shops in the present Paota Mandi, as dealers in vegetables, having license to trade as such. When the respondents decided to shift the Mandi operating at Paota to Bhadvasia and it was inter alia decided that all the 323 shopkeepers/licensees at Paota Mandi shall be shifted to new Mandi at Bhadvasia. It will not be out of place to reproduce the excerpt of the decision of the State Government hereunder:-

¶128

“mijksDr fo’k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd tks/kiqj “kgj ds Hkkoh fodkl ,oa ikoVk fLFkr jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe ds cl LVs.M ds foLrkj ,oa fodkl ds fy, xkS.ke.Mh ;kMZ ¼Q-l-½ dks Hknokfl;k esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa eq[; lfpo egksn; dh v/;{krk esa lEiUu cSBd fnukad 07-02-2013 esa fd;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa dh fØ;kfUofr gsrq jkT; ljdkj dh fuEukuqlkj Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gS%&

¶129

1 xkS.ke.Mh ¼Q-l-½ ikoVk esa fLFkr lHkh 323 vkoVh O;olkba Z;ks] ftudk lR;kiu e.Mh fjdkMZ ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;xk] dks s Hknokfl;k esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;s tk jgs ;kMZ esa Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;s tkosaA

¶130

(9 of 16)

¶131

[CW-6320/2017]

¶132

2 orZeku esa ikoVk fLFkr ;kMZ esa dk;Zjr O;olkbZ;ksa esa ls lCth dk Fkksd O;olk; djus okys vkoaVh O;olkbZ;ksa dks Hknokfl;k fLFkr 30 ch?kk Hkwfe esa rFkk “ks’k QqVdj nqdkuksa esa dk;Zjr Qy dk O;olk; djus okys vkaoVh O;olkbZ;ksa dks thjk e.Mh ds ikl 11 ch?kk Hkwfe ij fpfUgr Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;s tkosaA ;g vkoaVu vpy lEifr vkoaVu uhfr 2005 ds rgr izFke pj.k ds vkoaVu dh nj dh x.kuk ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxhA 3 Hkw[k.Mksa dk vkoaVu vkilh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sA lgefr uk cuus dh n”kk esa ykVjh ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA bl gsrq eaMh lfefr 20-02-2013 rd fLFkfr Li’V djsA

¶133

4 vkoVh vuqKki=/kkfj;ka sa ds vykok e.Mh {ks= esa dk;Zjr vU; O;olkbZ;ksa dks Hkh muds O;olk; dh izd`fr ds vuq:i lCth ,oa Qy Cykd esa izFke pj.k ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i vkoVu fd;k tk;a A budk vkos aVu vkoVha vuqKki=/kkfj;ksa d i”pkr “ks ’k jgs s Hkw[k.Mksa ds fy;s fd;k tk;As

¶134

5 izLrkfor lCth Cykd esa nqdkuksa ds vkdkj esa leqfpr ifjorZu djrs gq, vfrfjDr nqdkus Hkh l`ftr dh tk;s ftlls dh lCth dk O;olk; dj jgs vuqKki=/kkjh xSj vkoafV;ksa dks Hkh lCth Cykd esa Hkw[k.Mksa dk vkoVua fd;k tk ldsA

¶135

6 Qy lCth eaMh ikoVk ds izkxa.k esa orZeku esa dk;Zjr QqVdj O;olkbZ;ksa dks Hknokfl;k esa fLFkr jksMost odZ”kki dh izkIr gksus okyh Hkwfe esa NksVs Hkw[k.M dkVdj lek;ksftr@vkoaVu fd;k tk;sA orZeku esa QqVdj O;olkbZ;ksa ds fy;s vkoaVu ds laca/k esa iFkd ls dksbZ uhfr ugha gksus ds dkj.k lfpo] df’k mit eaMh lfefr ¼Qy lCth½ tks/kiqj ,oa funs”kd] d`f’k foi.ku izLrko rS;kj dj is”k djkosaA

¶136

7 Qy lCth eaMh dh leLr 17 ch?kk 5 fcLok Hkwfe jksMost ds foLrkj ,oa fodkl ds fy;s nh tk;sxhA

¶137

mDr uo cl LVs.M dk f”kykU;kl dk;ZØe vizSy ds izFke lIrkg esa fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa dh ikyuk le;c) rjhds ls lqfuf”pr fd;k tk;s rFkk vkoaVu vkfn dh izfØ;k Hkh rn~uq:i iw.kZ dj yh tkosA”

¶138

A perusal of the decision of the State Government reveals that the licensees-dealers, running wholesaler business in vegetables are/were to be allotted plots in 30 bighas of land in Bhadwasia and the dealers, dealing in fruits are/were to be allotted plots in 11 bighas of land, near Jeera Mandi. It was also

¶139

(10 of 16) [CW-6320/2017]

¶140

decided by the respondents in a state level meeting that two separate Mandies will be developed known as ‘Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi’; and ‘Bhadwasia Fruit Mandi’ and the licensees shall be allotted plots, based on their nature of trade, vegetable or fruit, in the corresponding Mandis.

¶141

The petitioners applied for allotment of plots in new Mandi at Bhadwasia. Despite the fact that the petitioners were dealing in vegetables and had applied for allotment in Vegetable Mandi, were allotted plots in fruit mandi, by the respondent No.3.

¶142

The petitioners thus, filed an appeal under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, before the Director, which came to be allowed vide order dated 05.12.2016. The Director, while allowing the petitioners’ appeals, recorded a clear and categorical finding that the petitioners have been carrying on their business as wholesale dealers in vegetables, while flagging the admission made by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, in its reply. The decision of the Director did not rest on such admission alone, the Director appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that petitioners are having license to deal in vegetables and have been trading in vegetables. He noticed that when a new Mandi for Potato and Onion was developed, a condition specifically was incorporated in their license to the effect that they will not deal with the Potato, Onion and fruits.

¶143

Having recorded this finding, the Director allowed appeals filed by these petitioners, on 05.12.2016, as follows :-

¶144

“cgl mHk;i{k lquh xbZA i=koyh dk ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkostkr dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ,oa cgl ds nkSjku rFkk e.Mh lfefr ds tokc esa fuEu rF; lkeus vk;s a gS fd izkFkhZ QeZ izkjEHk ls

¶145

(11 of 16)

¶146

[CW-6320/2017]

¶147

gh lCth dk O;olk; djrh vk jgh gS rFkk lCth dk O;olk; dj ml ij e.Mh “kqYd vnk djrh vk jgh gSA ikoVk e.Mh ;kMZ iqjkuk e.Mh ;kMZ ftlesa nqdkuksa dk vkoaVu O;olk; dh izdfr ds vuqlkj ugha Fkk vFkkZr Qy rFkk lCth o vkyw I;kt vkfn ds fy, iFkd&iFkd CykWd cus gq, ugha FksA iwjs e.Mh ;kMZ esa lHkh txg lHkh izdfr ds O;olk; gsrq vkoaVu fd;s gq, FksA ;kMZ esa le; ds lkFk txg dh deh o “kgj ds e/; vk tkus ds dkj.k o’kZ 1993 esa Hknokfl;k e.Mh ;kMZ fodflr dj vkyw] I;kt o Qyksa ds O;olk; dks LFkkukUrfjr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA vkyw I;kt vkSj Qyksa ds O;olk; dks Hknokfl;k esa vyx&vyx ;kMZ esa LFkkukarfjr fd;kA vkyw I;kt vyx&vyx ;kMZ esa rFkk Qyksa dks O;olk; vyx ;kMZ esa LFkkukarfjr gqvkA ikoVk esa dsoy lCth ds vuqKki=/kkjh O;olk;h rFkk dqy Qyksa ds QqVdj O;olk;h gh jg x, FksA

¶148

jktLFkku ljdkj df’k xzqi&2 foHkkx ls fnukad 15-02-2013 dks i= Hkh tkjh fd;k x;kA i= ds fcUnq la[;k 2 esa orZeku esa ikoVk fLFkr ;kMZ esa dk;Zjr O;olkf;;ksa esa ls lCth dk O;olk; djus okys vkoaVh O;olkf;;kas dks Hknokfl;k fLFkr 30 ch?kk Hkwfe esa Hkw[k.M vkoafVr djus rFkk fcUnw la[;k 4 esa vkoaVh vuqKki=/kkfj;ksa ds vykok e.Mh {ks= esa dk;Zjr vU; O;olkf;;k **s** a dks Hkh muds O;olk; dh izdfr ds vuq:i lCth ,oa Qy CykWd esa vkoaVu fd;s tkus ds funsZ”k Li’V :i ls fn;s x;sA e.Mh cksMZ } kjk fnukad 22-07-2016 izLrko la[;k 4 esa QeksZa }kjk fujUrj ;kMZ esa lCth dk O;olk; dj e.Mh “kqYd vnk fd;k tkuk rFkk e.Mh lfefr }kjk lR;kfir gksuk ekurs gq, cksMZ us loZ lEefRr ls izkFkhZ QeksZa dks Qy ;kMZ esa vkoafVr Hkw[k.Mksa ds LFkku ij lCth ;kMZ esa muds O;olk; vuqlkj vkoaVu dk izLrko ikfjr dj mfpr dk;Zokgh djus gsrq lfpo dks funsZf”kr fd;k x;k gSA iwoZ esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj }kjk tu fgr ;kfpdk la- 7038@2016 ek/kks flag dPNkok o vU; cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU; esa ikfjr vkns”k fnuakd 04-3-2016 ds Øe esa bl fcUnq ij vfrŒ egkf/koDrk }kjk e.Mh lfefr dh fLFkfr dks Li’V fd;k x;k FkkA

¶149

vr% vihy vihykFkhZx.k e.Mh lfefr dks izfr izsf’kr ¼fjek.M½ dj funsZf”kr fd;k tkrk gS fd e.Mh lfefr vpy lEifr vkoaVu uhfr 2005] e.Mh izkxa.k LFkkukUrj.k uhfr] 2013 ,oa bl laca/k esa tkjh funsZ”k rFkk e.Mh lfefr ds }kjk le;≤ ij fy;s x;s izLrkoksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, izkFkhZx.k ds izdj.kksa ij muds O;olk; dh izd`fr ds vuq:i Hkw[k.M vkoaVu@ifjorZu ds laca/k esa fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh djsaA”

¶150

(12 of 16) [CW-6320/2017]

¶151

The petitioners’ basic grievance or for which they have approached this Court, was that notwithstanding the order aforesaid, passed by the Director on 05.12.2016, the respondent No.3 has not allotted the plots to the petitioners in BhadwasiaVegetable Mandi.

¶152

Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, highlighting the inaction of the respondent No.3 (in not allotting the plots to them in vegetable Mandi), urged that the respondents are bound to follow the order dated 05.12.2016, passed by the Director, more particularly when the same has attained finality.

¶153

Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, did not raise serious dispute so far as petitioners’ entitlement as dealers dealing in vegetables is concerned; he however submitted that the list issued by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is only a provisional list and since the petitioners had been allotted plots in Fruit Mandi, their cases were not considered for allotment in Bhadwasia-Vegetable Mandi.

¶154

He pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petitions, a provisional list has been issued by the respondent No.3, wherein 49 licensees, dealing in vegetables, have been allotted plots, which includes the names of interveners also.

¶155

In response to the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, respondent No.3 has filed a reply and taken a rather strange plea that the petitioners were operating in the right side of the Mandi yard, which was essentially meant for dealers in fruits and hence, on 14.06.2016, when the lottery was conducted for Vegetable Mandi and Fruit Mandi, the petitioners’ names were included and

¶156

(13 of 16)

¶157

[CW-6320/2017]

¶158

considered in the list of traders to be shifted to 11 bigha land, earmarked for Bhadvasia-Fruit Mandi.

¶159

It is noteworthy that the petitioners’ assertion that they are licensees of vegetables and have been dealing in vegetables for last so many years specifically made in paras No.17 and 19 of the memo of writ petitions, has neither been denied by the Staterespondents No.1 and 2, nor by the respondent No.3 (Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti) in their reply. Such fact has not even been disputed in the additional affidavit sworn on 21.08.2018, filed by the Secretary.

¶160

The said affidavit furnishes a bizarre or unusual explanation for the allotment of plots in the fruit mandi, made to the petitioner. It will not be out of place to reproduce para No.12 of the additional affidavit dated 21.08.2018, which reads thus :

¶161

“That, in accordance with the direction given by the learned single judge, the allotment was required to be made strictly in accordance with the Policy of 2013. Since the petitioner was having space in the block where the business of fruit is being carried out, he was considered eligible and was entitled for the block of 165 shops only measuring 12x30. Further, since the consent was not given by all the applicants, the option of lottery was the only option left with the respondents for making allotment.”

¶162

An appraisal of the above extract, the arguments advanced, the documents placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar, on behalf of respondent No.3, make it abundantly clear that the respondent No.3 had allotted shops to the petitioners in Fruit Mandi, simply because petitioners’ shops in the Mandi at Paota

¶163

(14 of 16)

¶164

[CW-6320/2017]

¶165

were situated amongst 165 shops in Blocks-E, H-II, J-II, K-I and L; the blocks in which fruit dealers were operating.

¶166

It has also been argued that in the appeal filed by the petitioners, they had sought a relief that they be allotted shops in Vegetable Mandi instead of Fruit Mandi, which prayer falls in the ambit of change of size of plot, which can be done subsequently, as per clause 3(7) of he Policy of 2013.

¶167

The intervener, Mr. Anand Purohit, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vineet Dave, appearing on behalf of interveners, vehemently argued that the petitioners are not entitled to allotment in Vegetable Mandi, as they are not dealing in vegetables.

¶168

The stand of the respondents that the petitioners were operating in right side of the Mandi, hence, they were allotted plots in Fruit Mandi is unpalatable, if not preposterous. Such stand does not confirm to logic and hence, cannot be countenanced, particularly when the respondents have created two separate mandis for vegetables and fruits, based on the nature of trade.

¶169

The Appellate Authority-the Director has therefore rightly allowed petitioners’ appeals, vide his order dated 05.12.2016. The Director has already quashed the order dated 14.07.2016, and the same has attained finality.

¶170

Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to consider petitioners’ cases as dealers dealing in vegetables and allot the plots in Bhadvasia-Vegetable Mandi.

¶171

When this Court completed the dictation of this order, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to

¶172

(15 of 16) [CW-6320/2017]

¶173

fore petitioners’ immediate concern/grievance that the Paota Vegetable Mandi is going to be de-notified soon and since the respondent No.3 has not allotted them the plots, they could not construct their shops in new Vegetable Mandi at Bhadvasia. He submitted that allotment of plots and construction of shops at Bhadvasia will take some time and till they are allotted plots and their shops are constructed, he prayed that they may be permitted to carry on their trade at present Mandi at Paota only.

¶174

Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed such prayer and submitted that permitting these persons to operate in Paota Mandi would thwart rather stifle the entire process of de-notifying the Paota Mandi and effort of the State to shift the Paota Mandi to Bhadwasia for expanding Roadways Bus Stand and to de-congest Paota Circle.

¶175

When the Court asked about some alternative solution, the respondent No.3, Mr. Bhagirath Prajapat, present in person, came out with a proposal that since the respondents are in process of shifting the Mandi, till the rights of the petitioners are determined; they are allotted plots and the allottees raise construction thereupon; he will permit these nine petitioners to operate in new vegetable mandi at Bhadwasia-in an open yard.

¶176

Such offer was accepted by Mr. Manoj Bhandari, in presence of some of the petitioners.

¶177

Hence, it is ordered that if any further enquiry is to be made, the same be completed by the Secretary as early as possible and the petitioners be allotted shops (if eligible), within a period of two months from today.

¶178

(16 of 16) [CW-6320/2017]

¶179

In case the petitioners are allotted shops in the vegetable mandi at Bhadwasia, they shall be given reasonable time to construct their shops. Until such time, petitioners (who are allotted plots) will be permitted to operate in the open space provided by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiit.

¶180

Needless to observe that petitioners shall surrender their allotment in Fruit Mandi and pay differential amount, if any, within a period of 30 days of receipt of allotment letter.

¶181

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶182

209 to 214, 216 to 218-AArora/-

M/S. Jagdish Sankhla and Company v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Jagdish Sankhla and Company v. State 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

Dhanna Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Kanhaiyalal

Pushpa Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Magraj Vs Gram Panchayat Keru

M/S. Jagdish Birma Ram Vs State and Ors.

M/S. Yasin Khan Yusuf Khan Vs State and Ors.