SOOD BROTHERS, CHANDIGARH Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the rejection of his application for renewal of licence as Kacha Aartiya under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called, the Act). The admitted case is that he had been a licensee since the year 1970 and he was running his business from SCF 27, Sabji Mandi, Sector-26, Chandigarh. The petitioner had been evicted by the landlord and he had entered into a fresh arrangement with another owner of SCF 12 in the same Mandi. The application was rejected on the ground that the renewal was not in respect of the same shop at SCF 27 but it was for shop SCF 12 and the rule did not permit the renewal when he has changed the shop to another premises.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the scheme of the Act and the relevant Rule under Rule 21 provide for a right of renewal and there was no scope for rejecting the relief only on the ground that there had been a change of the premises where the business had already established. The learned counsel refers to the language in Section 10 that provides for application for licensees, which enables "any person" to apply to the authority specified under Section 9 for a licence. The counsel would refer to Rule 20, which enables a licensee to apply for marking addition or deletion in the particulars of business for which licence has been issued to him. This according to him would include a change in the premises also.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Vikas Bahl points out to certain instances where such changes have been made and produces before me the data collected through applications filed under the RTI Act. The counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 admits to such instances but he would argue that these were clearly irregularities and actions have been taken against officials, who were responsible for entertaining change in place of business in applications for renewal of licences under the Act. I would let it rest there and will not cite instances of such changes effected as governing the rights of the parties to entitle the petitioner to ask for a change of address, since the respondents No. 2 and 3 admit that their early actions were erroneous.