BHARAT BHUSHAN AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bharat Bhushan Aggarwal and another through present writ filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seek writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash proclamation notice, Annexure P-8, issued by the Market Committee, Ambala City for the sale by open auction of plots No. 92 and 93 situated in New Grain Market, Ambala City as also writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot them plots aforesaid or any other plots of shops lying vacant in the New Grain Market Ambala City.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be working as Commission Agent in his two shop Nos. 5608 and 5609 situated in Old Grain Market, Ambala City for the last more than forty years under Commission Agent Licence No. 385/ANB/SAHB 1966 and 312ACB/176 subsequently changed as Licence No. 824 in the year 1986 issued by the Market Committee, Ambala City. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be working as Commission agent under the name and style of M/s Baru Mal Rattan Lal for the 1st many years and holding licence No. 65 duly issued by the Market Committee, Ambala City. A new grain market was established at Ambala City by respondents through the Colonization Department in which 140 plots of shops were demarcated which were sold by public auction in 1976. The management and control of the new Grain Market at Ambala City was transferred to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - Haryana State Agricultural Market Board, Panchkula and Market Committee, Ambala City. The new Grain Market was further extended by respondent No. 2 by carving out 22 new plot which are yet to be sold. However, the premises of old grain market were denotified by respondent No. 1 some time in 1986 with the result that no business of sale and purchase of foodgrains could be carried on in the old grain market. All the licensed dealers in foodgrains had to shift to the new grain market for carrying on their business of sale and purchased of foodgrains. Respondent No. 2 framed policy in 1980 vide resolution No. 6 dated September 8, 1980 for the sale of plots of shops in the grain markets in the State of Haryana according to which 45% of the plots of shops were reserved for licensed dealers for being sold to them at reserved price by draw of lots from amongst the applicants who were licensed dealers of the market area dealing in foodgrains, 5% of the plots were reserved for Harijans and remaining plots were to be sold by open auction in which any person could acquire a plot by giving highest bid. Respondent No. 2 modified its policy for the transfer/allotment of plots in the new grain markets in the State of Haryana vide resolution No. 9 dated June 1, 1987 whereby it was decided that 40% of the plots of shops would be allotted to the licensed dealers, 5% to the Harijans and 5% to the growers of the area by draw of lots. The policy was further amended vide resolution No 6 dated October, 1990 whereby it was decided that all the old licensed dealers, who were eligible for allotment of plots in accordance with the policy of the Board dated June 1, 1987, would be alllotted plots of shops on reserved price by draw of lot so that the dealers in the old mandis which were de-notifed were also able to acquire plot of shop for carrying on their business in the new grain market. As petitioners were carrying on the business of sale and purchase of foodgrains in the old grain market and had to shift to the new grain market, they applied for allotment of plots vide letter dated March 22, 1988. No reply was received which necessitated seeing of reminders. It is pleaded that one of the dealers, who was similarly situated, however, received letter dated November 27, 1990 in which it was stated that his request for allotment of plot shop in the New grain market had been filed as the plots in the said market had been filed as the plots in the said market were sold by the Colonization Department. Respondents No. 3 meanwhile published proclamation notice for the sale of plot Nos. 92 ad 93 situated in new grain market, Ambala City by open auction in which it was provided that any person could make bid for the purchase of the said plots. It is this notice which is stated to be in violation of the policy earlier framed by the respondent No. 2. On the facts aforesaid it is pleaded that respondents had no authority to sell these two plots by open auction by ignoring the policy framed by them vide which the plots have to be given to licensed dealers on reserved price.

(3.) The matter has been contested on various grounds but in particular it has been pleaded in the written statement that has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos 2 and 3 that petitioners are to eligible for allotment of plots as per policy of the Board. The prayer made in the petition for quashing notice issued by the Market Committee for the sale of plot No.92 and 93 by open auction, it is pleaded, is not competent. The said plots had been sold and allotment letters issued to the prospective higher bidders. The board had amended its reservation policy vide resolution No. 6 dated October 8, 1990 vide which all the eligible old licensees were to be allotted plots in the new Mandi to be developed in future by the Board. The eligibility criteria was that the firm should have licence under Section 10 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 for more than two years old and he should possess premises in the old Mandi to be denotified. In the present case the petitioners were already operating in new grain market and they were not being uprooted by the sale of aforesaid plots. I t is further pleaded that the new grain market was developed by the Colonization department and all the plots except two plots were sold by the said department. The new grain market was transferred to the Market Committee, Ambala City by the Colonization Department in the year 1986 on the winding up of the said department, only two plots were vacant which were auctioned by the Market Committee on May 27, 1991 and as the petitioners were not eligible for allotment of plots as per the policy of the Board, their cases were not considered.