RAM CHANDER PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this petition, the petitioner essentially seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of 'certiorari' quashing the order passed by the revisional authority (Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare), dtd. 20/12/2017, by which the revision filed by the Market Committee, Safidon (respondent no.3) herein, has been allowed and the order passed in favour of the petitioner by the appellate authority, has been set aside.

(2.) The background of the matter is that the Market Committee, Safidon, had invited applications from 'old licencees of Category-II' working in the market yard, as the market yard was likely to be denotified. The petitioner herein as also other persons submitted their applications to the committee, with an order dtd. 19/12/2002 having been passed, by which the petitioner was declared ineligible for the draw of lots, on the ground that it did not have an independent premises in the old mandi as was required in terms of Rule 3(1)(vi) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rule, 2000.

(3.) A reply to the petition, a replication thereto and a rejoinder to the replication having been also filed by the petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3 respectively, Mr. A.P.S.Mann, learned counsel appearing for the said respondents, pointed to the definition of premises as has been reproduced by the petitioner himself in paragraph 6 of the petition, such definition having been given in resolution no.6 of the Marketing Board, dtd. 8/10/1990. The said definition reads as follows:-