Gulab Industries vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Matter has come up on application seeking early listing. At request, matter was finally heard and is being disposed of at admission stage.

Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that petitioner-Firm (M/s Gulab Industries) was issued permanent license on 27/04/1996 (Ann.1) Under Rule 69/72 of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market (Krishi Upaj Mandi) Rules, 1963 for carrying on business of agricultural produce at F-771 Road No. 1-D, Vishva Karma Industrial Area, Jaipur on the terms & conditions referred to in license (Ann.1). As alleged, petitioner-Firm is also having an office at C-26, Chandpole Anaj Mandi, Jaipur.

Counsel for petitioner submits that others similarly situated grain traders were later on shifted to Kukar Khera Sub-Yard of Grain Market, Sikar Road, Jaipur; and respondents have adopted different standards in not taking note of request of petitioner-Firm who too was one of the dealers alongwith others carrying on business in Grain Mandi Chandpole, Jaipur.

It has not been disputed by Counsel for petitioner-Firm that the petitioner was issued license for carrying on business at the place mentioned therein at Vishwa Karma Industrial Area long back on 11/10/90 and after a delay of four years, legal notice was served that petitioner Firm may also be considered for allotment of shop in KukarKhera Sub-Yard Jaipur while having been apprised from news papers for shifting of similar situated Traders from Chandpol/Surajpol to KukarKhera Sub-yard Jaipur under orders of High Court.

After notices were served upon respondents reply has been filed. In the reply, respondent No. 3 inter-alia averred that State Government establihed new Krishi Upaj Mandi Sub-Yard, Kukerkhera at Sikar Road for shifting of traders from Chandpole Sub-Mandi Yard and vide advertiment dt. 19/12/2001, invited applications from existing license holders of Chandpole sub-mandi yard forallotment of plot at Kukerkhera sub-mandi yard on or before last date 31/12/2001, allotment process whereof stood completed by Committee vide order dt. 27/12/2004 and vide advertisement dt. 19/12/2001, no applications were invited from traders of other mandi area. It has also been specifically averred in para 5 of the reply that place of business mentioned in license issued to petitioner Firm (Ann.1) clearly shows that the same is not within Krishi Upaj Mandi sub yard Chandpole, Jaipur; as such may not be eligible for allotment of plot in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sub Yard Kuker Khera.

Apart from delay in filing instant petition, Counsel for respondents submits that there was a series of litigation having taken place and as regards allotment of shop in Kukar Khera Sub-yard, Jaipur, Division Bench of this Court in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Ashoka Oil Industries Special Appeal (Writ)-519/08 & bunch of Special appeals decided on 09/09/2008 2009(1) WLC 94 has finally directed the authorities to make allotment of remaining available plots/shops; as per the direction referred to therein and therefore, petitioners'' application at such belated stage cannot be considered in contravention of direction of this Court.

Counsel for respondents further submits that one M/s Milkvita Dairy Products who was allotted shop in Surajpole yard in the year 1989, with the same grievance seeking shifting to KukarKhera sub-Yard, preferred CWP-1988/2005 which was dismissed vide order dt. 17/10/06 - against which Special Appeal (W)-829/2007 was preferred before Division Bench but that was also dismissed vide order dt. 21/02/2008.

No such facts have been disclosed by petitioner Firm as to who were those allottees being similarly situated like petitioner-Firm and to whom & in what circumstances, they were shifted to KukarKhera Sub-yard from Chandpole main Yard, Jaipur at a later point of time and how action of respondents in any manner can be said to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It is not disputed that controversy raised herein has been finally decided by Division Bench of this Court in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Ashoka Oil Indus. (supra) and settled the issue with regard to remaining plots at Kukarkhera subyard, vide order dt. 09/09/2008 (supra) ad infra:

We have seriously thought over the claims and counter claims of the appellants and the respondents. Dismissal or allowing the appeal will not solve the problem of either of the parties. A solution has to be found out. To resolve this controversy, we dispose of these appeals in following terms:

(i) The appellants shall advertise remaining plots providing opportunity to all the Traders and Brokers doing their business in Sub-Market Yards and the market Area.

(ii) We grant an opportunity to the appellants to allot plots in second phase after advertising these plots with other plots, if carved out for allotment, in accordance with the policy framed by the appellants.

(iii) In case the appellants decide to allot these 36 plots as per their necessity without waiting for advertising the plots earmarked for the second phase, the appellants are directed to advertise and allot the same within reasonable time according to the policy.

In view of direction of Division Bench (supra), petitioner''s application can also be considered in terms thereof.

Consequently, writ petition stands disposed of. Petitioner''s application for allotment may also be considered in the light of D.B. judgment (supra). No costs.