UMRAO MAL VED PARKASH Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner firm M/s Umrao Mal Ved Parkash, Anaj Mandi, Charkhi Dadri has invoked the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 29.3.2010 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Mandi Bhawan Sector 6, Panchkula and order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexue P/5) passed by the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri seeking direction to the respondents to allot him shop/plot at a reserve price out of the category (ii) being an old licensee.

(2.) Precisely, the allegations are that the petitioner is the licensee and carrying on business of commission agent/kacha arthiya in the notified market yard of Charkhi Dadri since 1989. The license issued to him was renewed from time to time till 31.3.2010. Pursuant to the grant of license, the petitioner purchased the shop measuring 18' x 96' vide sale deed No.58 dated 10.3.1989 registered on 10.4.1989. The shop was purchased by Pawan Kumar along with his father Arjun Devi son of Umrao Mal and mother Smt. Meena Devi wife of Arjun Dev. The said shop was divided into two parts. One part is in possession of the petitioner in which he is carrying on his business, whereas, the other part has been rented out by his father to M/s Nand Kishore Lakhi Ram on a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/-. The old Anaj Mandi at Charkhi Dadri was de-notified and new Anaj Mandi came into being where old licensees of category (ii) were entitled to purchase shop/ plots at reserve price in accordance with rules. The process of allotment commenced on 8.2.2008, but it deferred and then it recommenced in June, 2009 as per notice (Annexure P/2). The petitioner submitted application on 26.6.2009 (Annexure P/3) but the same was rejected and the petitioner was conveyed about the same vide memo No.702 dated 13.7.2009 (Annexure P/4). The objections preferred by him were also dismissed vide order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure P/5). The appeal (Annexure P/6) preferred by him was dismissed vide order dated 29.3.2010 (Annexure P/7), with the observations that his case was not covered by Rule 3 (i) (vi) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (for short, 'the Rules'). The petitioner firm was discriminated inasmuch as the case of M/s Chuni Lal Parmod Kumar which was on the similar footings was accepted vide order dated 30.3.2010 (Annexure P/9). As per category (ii) if a shop has been divided into two parts and independently utilized by two independent licensees then both are eligible under the rules for allotment of the shop. The orders annexure P/5 and P/7 are illegal being without application of mind and without taking into consideration that two independent firms were working separately in independent shops. Moreover, the resolution dated 25.2.2009 was also not taken into consideration.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the Board, it has not disputed the scheme but it was stated that since the case of the petitioner was not covered by rule 3 (i) (vi) of the s and also further the resolution No.3 dated 25.2.2009, as such, his case was rejected. While explaining further, it was submitted that a survey dated 4.3.2009 was conducted by the Executive Officer-cum- Secretary Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri and he found vide survey report Annexure R/4 that two licensees i.e. license No.571 M/s Nand Kishore Lakhi Ram and license No.705 M/s Umrao Mal Ved Parkash were working in the premises but there was no partition wall.