M/s Nand Ram Ram Phal, Commission Agent, Old Anaj Mandi v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula

Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents.

3. C.W.P. No.9324 of 1987 M/s Sheonath Rai Ramesh Chand, Commission Agent, Old Anaj Mandi, Rohtak through Shri Ram Parkash as Proprietor and another ........Petitioners Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. C.W.P. No.7259 of 1987 -2-

4. C.W.P. No.9325 of 1987 M/s Balaji Trading Company, Commission Agent, Old Anaj Mandi, Rohtak through Shri Ganga Bishan and another Versus ........Petitioners Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents.

5. C.W.P. No.8821 of 1988 M/s Chandgi Ram Om Parkash through Om Parkash, Grain Merchants and Commission Agents, Anaj Mandi, Rohtak and another Versus ........Petitioners Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) -.-

1. The batch of writ petitions address the same issue relating to the allotment of plots in New Anaj Mandi at Rohtak. The writ petitioners claim to be persons, who are carrying on business in Old Anaj Mandi and as per the eligibility criteria framed by the Market Committee, Rohtak, the persons who had been C.W.P. No.7259 of 1987 -3- licencees for at least two years prior to the date when the advertisement was issued namely on 13.08.1987 would have a right to seek for an allotment in the new market by draw of lots. The claim of the petitioners had been that all of them had been eligible but they had been deliberately kept out of the fray without any reason.

2. The petitioner in C.W.P. No.9324 of 1987 would claim that the allotment was refused on a wrong premise that the property in occupation was also held by yet another person by name Bhola Ram Chandgi Ram and in cases where more than one firm was working in the same premise, the older firm would alone be eligible to allotment. The contention of the petitioner was that the shop itself belonged to two persons Hari Swarup and Sulekh Chand and the revenue records clearly showed that the portions of the respective entitlements had been predicated and held on tenancy by two different persons one being Bhola Ram Chandgi Ram and the other, being the petitioner himself. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to an independent consideration and ought not to have been taken as a firm working in the same premises. It was on the other hand, independent possession of a half portion of premises and he was eligible for being considered.

3. All other writ petitions address the same issue on allotment of plots as persons, who claimed that they had been carrying on their trade or business in the Old Anaj Market but they had been wrongly kept out of the consideration by falsely alleging that they are not carrying on business or trade. All the petitioners C.W.P. No.7259 of 1987 -4- have filed respective documents to establish that they were carrying on the business and would urge that the rejection of the petitioners out of consideration was unjustified and arbitrary.

4. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that even during the pendency of the writ petition, fresh advertisements had been issued for additional plots, which are made available to persons in the old anaj market. It appears that this Court has passed orders in at least three ways viz., in some of them, directing reservation of a plot, while in some that allotment were to be made subject to outcome of the writ petition and in yet another category, the Court had directed that status quo with regard to possession shall be maintained. I have not the benefit of assistance from the Mandi Board to inform the present status nor I have any information whether all the plots have been exhausted or not.

5. The case has been on board since 1987 and the only point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to allotment in terms of the criteria evolved by the Mandi Board for allotment. C.W.P. No.9324 of 1987 addresses a slightly different situation, which I have outlined above and all other writ petitions address the same issue with reference to the allotment on the basis of alleged non-fulfillment of the criteria. All the petitioners have produced proof of the fact that they were running the business for two years prior to the advertisement in the Old Anaj Market. The contentions have not been refuted by the respondents and interest of justice would only be best served by a direction for favourable C.W.P. No.7259 of 1987 -5- consideration for allotment without any further delay by securing from each one of the petitioners the amount, which was determined as the price for each plot. It is represented that there was a price for all the persons who were having their business or trade in the Old Anaj Market and the said price shall be recovered with interest @12% per annum from the date when the amounts were required to be paid, if the draw had been concluded in favour of the petitioners. The right is personal to the petitioners and it shall not be transferred to any one else. On allotment of the plots to the petitioners, the petitioners shall cease to operate from the Old Anaj Mandi from where they are running their business. The Mandi Board shall consider the grant of time for such shifting depending upon the length of time that it would take for establishing the new construction on the plots so as to relocate themselves to the respective new plots. The allotment as I have indicated above shall be only in respect of plots which have not so far been allotted to others, which remain vacant and available for allotment. If there is any shortfall in the number of plots available to the petitioners who are before this Court, lots shall be drawn from amongst the petitioners themselves to the number of plots which are available.

6. The writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. March 02, 2010 Pankaj* (K. KANNAN) JUDGE