TEK CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prayer for quashing order dated 15.3.2007 (Annexure P.2) has been made as the application filed by the petitioner for grant of Kacha Arhtiya (Category II) Licence has been declined by respondents. A further prayer for quashing letter dated 6.10.2000 (Annexure P.3) has also been made which prohibits issuance of Kacha Arhitya licence without separate premises in the declared market yard. The petitioner has still further prayed that Sub -rule 2(B) of Rule 3 of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (for brevity 'Rules, 2000') as amended on 11.11.2004 ( Annexure P.4) be declared as ultra vires of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for brevity the '1961 Act') and the Constitution.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner is in possession of booth No. 1 situated in New Grain Market Madlauda, District Panipat. He purchased this plot vide allotment order dated 22.1.2007 for Rs. 16 lacs. With the object of carrying on the business of Kacha Arhtiya (Category II) from his own booth No. 1, he submitted an application dated 15.2.2007 to the Market Committee Madlauda for issuance of licence in the name of Mandeep Trading Company. The application has been rejected vide order dated 15.3.2007 (Annexure P.2) by the Market Committee on the ground that the application was not in Form 'A'. It in terms further mentioned that the petitioner could not be granted licence in view of amendment of Rule 3 of the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 which was made in 2004. It has further been represented that according to policy dated 6.10.2000 framed by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, respondent No. 2, no licence of Kacha Arhtiya is to be granted against a booth shop. It is claimed that the aforementioned policy has been held to be illegal. The petitioner has made reference to the amendment dated 11.11.2004 (Annexure P.4) made by the respondent -state in Rules, 2000 to regulate the sale of immovable property developed and owned by the Market Committee after the year 2000. Sub rule 2(B) of Rule 3 of the 'Rules 2000' has been inserted after Sub rule (2A)' which prohibits issuance of Kacha Arhitiya licence for category II. It is claimed that according to Rule 2(9) of the Rules., Kacha Arhitiya has been defined to mean a dealer who in consideration of commission, offer services to sell agricultural produce. The petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 14275 of 1997 (Pritpal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.) decided on 11.11.1997. We have heard learned Counsel at some length and find that there is no element of illegality or constitutional violation in Rule 2(B) incorporated in 2004 in 'Rules 2000'. It would be appropriate to read the rule, which is as under:

(3.) A perusal of the above rule shows that provision to do business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce in booths has been prohibited because there is hardly any space in front of the booth to display the agricultural produce. It is trite to observe that whenever Kacha Arhitiya in the market area has to sell the agricultural produce the whole produce is heaped in front of his shop for auction and thereafter the traders are to approach the Kacha Arhitiya at the time of auction to examine the produce. They bid for the produce according to the quality, moisture, maturity and a number of other factors. In the absence of any arrangement with the Kacha Arhitya, who is sitting in a booth, for displaying the agricultural produce it would not be possible for him to transact business. The Legislature has merely recognised the ground realities and the practical difficulties which the Kacha Arhitya sitting in a booth is likely to face. Therefore, we are not impressed with the submission that Rule 2(B) of Rules 2000 is ultra vires of Rule 2(9) or is controlled by it because Kacha Arhitiya means a dealer who offer his services to sell agricultural produce in consideration of commission but the mode of offering services to sell the agricultural produce is significantly associated with the arrangements available for displaying the agricultural produce. It is not possible to accept the contention that agricultural produce can be sold either in the field where there is no opportunity to a prospective bidder to examine the produce nor it could be done by examining the same in the vehicle which carry the agricultural produce to the market area. We are further of the view that the agricultural produce is heaped before the shop of Kacha Arhitiya after it has been subjected to cleaning and sieving process. In the absence of any space for cleaning and sieving, the kacha arhitiya sitting in a booth would not be able to perform all these functions. The impugned Rule is based on relevant considerations and deserved to be upheld. We are further of the view that this Rules does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and cannot be declared ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution.