MOHD SULEMAN Vs. MOHD SULEMAN BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra court appeal impugns the order dated 17 th February, 2011 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No.757/2011 preferred by the three appellants. The said writ petition was preferred seeking a direction to the respondents Delhi Agriculture Marketing Board (DAMB) and Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) to allot alternative shops to the appellants in the Subzi Mandi, Okhla or Gazipur in lieu of their shops in Phool Mandi, Darya Ganj. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellants had earlier also filed WP(C) No.9894/2009 for the same relief and which was withdrawn by them on 21 st December, 2009 after apologizing for wrong and incorrect averments made in that writ petition. Though it was the contention of the appellants that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn for technical grounds, the learned Single Judge has in the impugned order observed that the appellants having withdrawn the earlier writ petition, even if on technical grounds, were not entitled to again approach the Court. Nevertheless the learned Single Judge also considered the merits of the claim of the appellants and found, that claims of the appellants for alternative shops were rejected by the respondent DAMB for the reason that the names of the appellants did not figure in the surveys conducted in the years 1976 and 1985; the appellants never made a representation claiming that their names had been wrongly left out in the surveys and that the appellants despite opportunity had failed to produce documents in support of their entitlement.

(2.) IT was also the contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge that as per the note dated 22nd January, 2001, the appellants no. 2 and 3 had been found to be carrying their trade business in vegetables from shop No. 3684/2, Phool Mandi, Darya Ganj and that their cases had not been examined by DAMB and APMC. The learned Single Judge however found that on a reading of the entire note it was borne out that the appellants were in fact not found carrying any trade. IT was further observed that though the notings were of the year 2001-2003, the first writ petition was filed six years thereafter in the year 2009 and the writ petition from which this appeal arises, only in the year 2011. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) IN our opinion the withdrawal by the appellants of the earlier writ petition in the year 2009 was itself sufficient for not entertaining the subsequent petition, after two years, claiming the same relief.