Dharam Paul and Company Ludhiana vs State of Punjab

Surya Kant, J.—This order shall dispose of civil writ petition Nos. 23772 and 24038 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases.

For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 23722 of 2012.

The petitioner is an old licencee of Vegetable Market at Ludhiana.

Allotment of plot on concessional rate in the newly notified Sabji Mandi has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not in occupation of any premises in the old Sabji Mandi. The petitioner was admittedly granted licence to run its business from "Phar No. 1", Sabji Mandi, Ludhiana.

Though there are multiple issues raised in this petition, however, the allotment of plot on concessional basis has been denied to the petitioner, primarily on the ground that it did not occupy any premises in the old Sabji Mandi.

The question, thus arises for consideration is whether "Phar/open platform" constitutes a ''premises'' within the meaning of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "1999 Rules")?

The above stated question has been answered by this Court in CWP No. 6092 of 2012 (M/s. Jaswant Rai and Sons vs. State of Punjab and others) decided on 02.04.2012 observing as follows:-

The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the issue that the "premises" would not strictly mean a shop but would also include a Phar/Platform for the purpose of allotment of plot to the petitioner, who was a tenant of M/s. Devi Dayal Kahan Chand. In this regard, a reference is also made to the order dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure P-8) in which plot has been allotted to a tenant who was carrying on business from a Phar/platform.

We are afraid that the said contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as a Phar/Platform cannot be equated with a shop and the order dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure P-8) cannot be said to be a precedent for allotment to a similarly situated person. Even otherwise, in terms of the order dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure P-8), the claimant therein had stated that one Manjit Singh was the owner of 1/2 share of shop No. 7 and from said Manjit Singh it had taken a portion of shop on rent. In this regard, there was an oral deed between the claimant therein and Manjit Singh. Manjit Singh had also filed an affidavit that the claimant was given space on lease. Therefore, the facts of that case are distinguishable. Even if it is to be taken that only a Phar/platform was taken by the claimant in the said case and it had been allotted a plot, the same would not be a precedent.

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

The Rules referred to above particularly Rule 3(v) above requires that the licensee should be in possession of an independent premises either as an owner or a tenant in the old market. Carrying on business from a Phar/platform cannot be equated with ''premises''. Therefore, if there has been an infraction of the rules in the order dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure P-8) by the quasi judicial authorities, the same would not entitle the petitioner to any relief.

In view of the above reproduced conclusion drawn by this Court that a Phar or platform cannot be equated with ''premises'' within the meaning of 1999 Rules, the impugned order passed by the authorities rejecting the petitioner''s claim calls for no interference.

Dismissed.

This order, however, shall not preclude the petitioner from seeking allotment of plot, if so permissible under the revised/modified criteria laid down by the respondents.