TEK CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prayer for quashing order dated 15-3-2007 (Annex-ure 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 Arhtiya licence without separate premises in the declared market yard. The petitioner has still further prayed that sub-rule (2b) 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 (2b) of Rule 3 of the 'rules 2000' has been inserted after sub-rule (2a) which prohibits issuance of kacha Arhtiya 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 CWP No. 14275 of 1997 (Pritpal singh v. State of Haryana and others)decide on 11-11-1997.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel at some length and find that there is no element of illegality or constitutional violation in sub-rule (2b) incorporated in 2004 in 'rules 2000'. It would be appropriate to read the rule, which is as under :