GIRDHARI LAL KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, we propose to decide two writ petitions, i.e., CWP No.4477 of 2010 and 5933 of 2011 as common questions of facts and law are involved in these cases. Facts are being taken from CWP No.4477 of 2010 for the sake of convenience.

(2.) THE petitioner firm is a Commission Agent (Katcha Arhtias) and has been granted Category (ii) licence for doing the business under Section 10 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), which was issued to it on 28.04.1976. The firm was working in the Sabzi Mandi in the town of Sampla continuously from the date of the grant of the licence, when a decision was taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3 to shift Old Sabzi Mandi on establishment of a New Sabzi Mandi. Applications were invited from old Arhtias, who were holding Category (ii) licence for the last more than five years for allotment of 26 shops/plots on preferential reserved price. Petitioner also submitted an application, but the same was rejected on the ground that it did not fulfill the requirement of Rule 3(1)(iv) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (for short "2000 Rules"). This order was passed on 30.11.2007 (Annexure P -1) and it was mentioned therein that the market fees deposited by the petitioner for the last two years prior to the decision taken for shifting of the Sabzi Mandi was less than Rs.5,000/ - per year as it had deposited Rs.515/ - for the year 2005 -06. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Rule 11 of the 2000 Rules before the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula. The said appeal was dismissed on 17.03.2008. Petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Agriculture, Haryana which was also dismissed on 25.05.2009, leading to filing of the present writ petition before this Court challenging the orders passed by the respondents.

(3.) IT has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that if the said Rule is quashed to this limited extent, petitioner would become eligible for consideration as it has an annual turnover of more than Rs.2.5 lacs during the relevant period of two years. He has placed reliance upon the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4175 of 2007 (M/s Rozy Trading Company Versus State of Haryana and others), decided on 01.12.2008 (Annexure P -8). While upholding the vires of clause (iv) of sub -rule (1) of Rule 3 of the 2000 Rules, it has been observed that the object of the Rule is to help old licensed dealers who have been transacting business in the old market area and would also be needing plots in the new market area. He, on this basis, contends that the spirit of the Rule is to give benefit to the genuine traders and deleting the bogus and fictitious persons, who may try to acquire the shop or plot for the purpose of selling it at a higher rate and earn profit therefrom. Accordingly, he contends that the proviso to the said Rule to this extent deserves to be quashed.