(1.) THE petitioner-firm is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering its claim for allotment of plot on preferential basis in the New Fruit and Vegetable Market at Naraingarh, on reserved price. The petitioner-firm has also challenged vires of clause (iv) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (for brevity, 'the Rules').
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 11.12.1990 a licence was granted to the petitioner-firm for carrying on the business of Commission Agent, Katcha Arhtia or other wholesale dealer for sale, purchase or storage of agricultural produce in the notified market area Naraingarh. The licence was thereafter renewed from time to time and lastly upto 31.3.2007. On 19.5.2006, the petitioner-firm applied for allotment of plot on reserve price being an old licensee. The draw of lots for allotment of plots to the old licensees were held on 5.6.2006 and 27.11.2006. However, the Allotment Committee while scrutinizing the applications found that the petitioner-firm had not paid market fee of Rs. 5000/- annually for the last two years. The respondents in their written statement has specially asserted that during the year 2004-2005 the petitioner-firm has paid only Rs. 585/- as market fee, which fact has remained un-rebutted as no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner-firm despite availing opportunity for that purpose on 12.5.2008. Thus, it is admitted position that the petitioner-firm did not fulfill the basic condition laid down in Rule 3 (1)(iv) of the Rules. Therefore, the application of the petitioner-firm was rejected on 26.5.2006 because it has not fulfilled the stipulation provided under Rule 3(1)(iv) of the Rules.
(3.) NO one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner on two successive occasions, therefore, we propose to decide the instant petition in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner after hearing learned counsel for the respondents.