AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I. A. No.01/2019 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6320/2017 :
An application has been filed by M/s Shivprakash Punaram Gehlot through its proprietor Shiv Prakash, seeking his impleadment in the present writ petition.
The applicant contends that he alongwith other eight persons have been shown at Serial No.41 to 49 of the provisional list of allottees dated 19.04.2018, prepared for allotment of plots to the applicantsat Bhadwasia Mandi Vegetable and if the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, they are likely to be ousted from the list, hence, they are necessary party.
Indisputably, the petitioner, in the present writ petition is a licensee-dealer in vegetables, having shop in the Paota Sabji Mandi, which is evident from perusal of the license and the findings recorded by the Director in his order dated 05.12.2016.
As per the Policy of 2013, the allotment in new Mandi is firstly required to be made in favour of the persons, who are having shops in Paota Mandi as per Clause 3(7) of the Policy of 2013. In case some plots remain vacant, they are to be allotted to other dealers, operating in Paota mandi, but who are not having shops.
True it is, that the applicant and eight persons have been shown in the list of provisional allottees, but the fact remains that they are not having any shops in the Paota Mandi, for which their cases are required to be considered under clause 3 (8) of the Policy of 2013.
As such, applicant has no rival or competitive claim vis a vis the petitioner, who has vied for allotment under clause 3(7) of the Policy. Merely because the petitioner's failure in the present writ petition may result in the applicant's success, it does not give them a right to oppose their case as a respondent. The State as well as Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti are already there, as respondents to defend their stand. The applicant cannot be heard to support/substantiate the stand of the State.
That apart, the list aforesaid is provisional, is evident from the fact that the State has taken a stand that due to inadvertence, 9 persons' claim could not be reckoned. The respondent No.3 has admitted that in light of the interim order passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, they were required to keep one shop for each of the petitioners vacant/reserved.
In this view of the matter, it is clear that nine shops which ought to be earmaked or kept vacant for the petitioners, could not be earmarked and the applicant and persons similarly situated to the applicant have been provisionally depicted in the list, which hardly creates any right in their favour. It is to be noted that the provisional list of merit, has a clear stipulation that the allotment in furtherance of the list will be subject to the present group of writ petitions. Had the respondents obeyed the interim order of this Court in the letter and spirit, surely, their names would not have been there in the list.
Hence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to implead the applicant as a party respondent.
However, since the rights of the applicant may be affected by any order passed in the present writ petitions, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the applicant to intervene.
The application stands disposed of.
ADJUDICATION OF THE WRIT PETITIONS:
These writ petitions have been filed by the above referred 9 petitioners with the following prayer:-
"i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to forthwith allot the shop treating it to be a Vegetable Trader at Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi yard.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to immediately implement the order dated 05.12.2016 (Annex.14) passed by the respondent No.2 and permit the petitioner to construct the shop at Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi at the requisite place amongst 49 vacant shops.
iii) In the alternative, without prejudice to above, by an appropriate order or directions, the order and communication dated 14th July, 2016 (Annex.9) treating it to be a fruit trader, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to lay requisite factual backdrop, which led to allotment of these plots to the petitioner as well as the respondents nos.5 to 10 at Bhadwasia.
A Mandi known as Savitri Bai Fulle Krishi Upaj Mandi (Fal Sabji), Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as Paota Mandi) is situated at Paota adjacent to Roadways Bus Stand. With the growth of the city, it became necessary that the bus stand at Paota be expanded, hence, the State Government, in pursuance of the directions issued in a PIL, decided to shift the present Mandi at Paota to Bhadwasia and give the land held by Paota Mandi to RSRTC for expansion of the bus stand. Initially, the Mandi at Paota accommodated licensees of all kinds of vegetables and fruits as well, however, in the year 1993, it was decided to shift licensees of onion, potato and fruits to a new Mandi at Bhadwasia.
In this process the licensee of such commodities shifted to new Mandi at Bhadwasia in the year 1995, leaving only wholesale traders of vegetables (other than onion potato) and some left out traders of fruits to continue with their business at Paota Mandi.
In the year 2013, after long deliberations, a high level meeting of various wings of the State Government was convened under the eigis of Addl. Chief Secretary, Urban Housing and Development Department and after thorough discussions on 7.2.2013, it was decided that the present licensees carrying on business at Paota would be shifted to Bhadwasia and the land of Paota Mandi would be handed over to RSRTC, while the land of RSRTC (depot) existing near the Bhadwasia Mandi would be handed over to Krishi Upaj Mandi for establishment/development of new fruit and vegetable Mandis.
The petitioners in the present writ petitions, have asserted that they are operating their shops in the present Paota Mandi, as dealers in vegetables, having license to trade as such. When the respondents decided to shift the Mandi operating at Paota to Bhadvasia and it was inter alia decided that all the 323 shopkeepers/licensees at Paota Mandi shall be shifted to new Mandi at Bhadvasia. It will not be out of place to reproduce the excerpt of the decision of the State Government hereunder:-
"उपरोक्त विषयान्तर्गत निवेदन है कि जोधपुर शहर के भावी विकास एवं पावटा स्थित राजस्थान राज्य पथ परिवहन निगम के बस स्टेण्ड के विस्तार एवं विकास के लिए गौणमण्डी यार्ड (फ.स.) को भदवासिया में स्थानान्तरित किये जाने के संबंध में मुख्य सचिव महोदय की अध्यक्षता में सम्पन्न बैठक दिनांक 07.02.2013 में किये गये निर्णयों की क्रियान्विति हेतु राज्य सरकार की निम्नानुसार स्वीकृति प्रदान की जाती हैः-
1 गौणमण्डी (फ.स.) पावटा में स्थित सभी 323 आवंटी व्यवसाईयो, जिनका सत्यापन मण्डी रिकार्ड के आधार पर किया जायेगा, को भदवासिया में स्थानान्तरित किये जा रहे यार्ड में भूखण्ड आवंटित किये जावें।
2 वर्तमान में पावटा स्थित यार्ड में कार्यरत व्यवसाईयों में से सब्जी का थोक व्यवसाय करने वाले आवंटी व्यवसाईयों को भदवासिया स्थित 30 बीघा भूमि में तथा शेष फुटकर दुकानों में कार्यरत फल का व्यवसाय करने वाले आंवटी व्यवसाईयों को जीरा मण्डी के पास 11 बीघा भूमि पर चिन्हित भूखण्ड आवंटित किये जावें। यह आवंटन अचल सम्पति आवंटन नीति 2005 के तहत प्रथम चरण के आवंटन की दर की गणना के अनुसार की जायेगी।
3 भूखण्डों का आवंटन आपसी सहमति के आधार पर किया जाये। सहमति ना बनने की दशा में लाटरी के माध्यम से किया जायेगा। इस हेतु मंडी समिति 20.02.2013 तक स्थिति स्पष्ट करे।
4 आवंटी अनुज्ञापत्रधारियों के अलावा मण्डी क्षेत्र में कार्यरत अन्य व्यवसाईयों को भी उनके व्यवसाय की प्रकृति के अनुरूप सब्जी एवं फल ब्लाक में प्रथम चरण के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप आवंटन किया जाये। इनका आवंटन आवंटी अनुज्ञापत्रधारियों के पश्चात शेष रहे भूखण्डों के लिये किया जाये।
5 प्रस्तावित सब्जी ब्लाक में दुकानों के आकार में समुचित परिवर्तन करते हुए अतिरिक्त दुकाने भी सृजित की जाये जिससे की सब्जी का व्यवसाय कर रहे अनुज्ञापत्रधारी गैर आवंटियों को भी सब्जी ब्लाक में भूखण्डों का आवंटन किया जा सके।
6 फल सब्जी मंडी पावटा के प्रागंण में वर्तमान में कार्यरत फुटकर व्यवसाईयों को भदवासिया में स्थित रोडवेज वर्कशाप की प्राप्त होने वाली भूमि में छोटे भूखण्ड काटकर समायोजित/आवंटन किया जाये। वर्तमान में फुटकर व्यवसाईयों के लिये आवंटन के संबंध में पृथक से कोई नीति नहीं होने के कारण सचिव, कृषि उपज मंडी समिति (फल सब्जी) जोधपुर एवं निदेशक, कृषि विपणन प्रस्ताव तैयार कर पेश करावें।
7 फल सब्जी मंडी की समस्त 17 बीघा 5 बिस्वा भूमि रोडवेज के विस्तार एवं विकास के लिये दी जायेगी।
उक्त नव बस स्टेण्ड का शिलान्यास कार्यक्रम अप्रैल के प्रथम सप्ताह में किया जाना प्रस्तावित है। ऐसी स्थिति में उपरोक्त निर्णयों की पालना समयबद्ध तरीके से सुनिश्चित किया जाये तथा आवंटन आदि की प्रक्रिया भी तद्नुरूप पूर्ण कर ली जावे।"
A perusal of the decision of the State Government reveals that the licensees-dealers, running wholesaler business in vegetables are/were to be allotted plots in 30 bighas of land in Bhadwasia and the dealers, dealing in fruits are/were to be allotted plots in 11 bighas of land, near Jeera Mandi. It was also decided by the respondents in a state level meeting that two separate Mandies will be developed known as 'Bhadwasia Vegetable Mandi'; and 'Bhadwasia Fruit Mandi' and the licensees shall be allotted plots, based on their nature of trade, vegetable or fruit, in the corresponding Mandis.
The petitioners applied for allotment of plots in new Mandi at Bhadwasia. Despite the fact that the petitioners were dealing in vegetables and had applied for allotment in Vegetable Mandi, were allotted plots in fruit mandi, by the respondent No.3.
The petitioners thus, filed an appeal under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, before the Director, which came to be allowed vide order dated 05.12.2016. The Director, while allowing the petitioners' appeals, recorded a clear and categorical finding that the petitioners have been carrying on their business as wholesale dealers in vegetables, while flagging the admission made by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, in its reply. The decision of the Director did not rest on such admission alone, the Director appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that petitioners are having license to deal in vegetables and have been trading in vegetables. He noticed that when a new Mandi for Potato and Onion was developed, a condition specifically was incorporated in their license to the effect that they will not deal with the Potato, Onion and fruits.
Having recorded this finding, the Director allowed appeals filed by these petitioners, on 05.12.2016, as follows :-
"बहस उभयपक्ष सुनी गई। पत्रावली का एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध दस्तावेजात का अवलोकन किया गया। पत्रावली के अवलोकन एवं बहस के दौरान तथा मण्डी समिति के जवाब में निम्न तथ्य सामने आयें है कि प्रार्थी फर्म प्रारम्भ से ही सब्जी का व्यवसाय करती आ रही है तथा सब्जी का व्यवसाय कर उस पर मण्डी शुल्क अदा करती आ रही है। पावटा मण्डी यार्ड पुराना मण्डी यार्ड जिसमें दुकानों का आवंटन व्यवसाय की प्रकृति के अनुसार नहीं था अर्थात फल तथा सब्जी व आलू प्याज आदि के लिए पृथक-पृथक ब्लॉक बने हुए नहीं थे। पूरे मण्डी यार्ड में सभी जगह सभी प्रकृति के व्यवसाय हेतु आवंटन किये हुए थे। यार्ड में समय के साथ जगह की कमी व शहर के मध्य आ जाने के कारण वर्ष 1993 में भदवासिया मण्डी यार्ड विकसित कर आलू, प्याज व फलों के व्यवसाय को स्थानान्तरित करने का निर्णय लिया गया। आलू प्याज और फलों के व्यवसाय को भदवासिया में अलग-अलग यार्ड में स्थानांतरित किया। आलू प्याज अलग-अलग यार्ड में तथा फलों को व्यवसाय अलग यार्ड में स्थानांतरित हुआ। पावटा में केवल सब्जी के अनुज्ञापत्रधारी व्यवसायी तथा कुल फलों के फुटकर व्यवसायी ही रह गए थे।
राजस्थान सरकार कृषि ग्रुप-2 विभाग से दिनांक 15.02.2013 को पत्र भी जारी किया गया। पत्र के बिन्दु संख्या 2 में वर्तमान में पावटा स्थित यार्ड में कार्यरत व्यवसायियों में से सब्जी का व्यवसाय करने वाले आवंटी व्यवसायियां को भदवासिया स्थित 30 बीघा भूमि में भूखण्ड आवंटित करने तथा बिन्दू संख्या 4 में आवंटी अनुज्ञापत्रधारियों के अलावा मण्डी क्षेत्र में कार्यरत अन्य व्यवसायियों को भी उनके व्यवसाय की प्रकृति के अनुरूप सब्जी एवं फल ब्लॉक में आवंटन किये जाने के निर्देश स्पष्ट रूप से दिये गये। मण्डी बोर्ड द्व ारा दिनांक 22.07.2016 प्रस्ताव संख्या 4 में फर्मों द्वारा निरन्तर यार्ड में सब्जी का व्यवसाय कर मण्डी शुल्क अदा किया जाना तथा मण्डी समिति द्वारा सत्यापित होना मानते हुए बोर्ड ने सर्व सम्मत्ति से प्रार्थी फर्मों को फल यार्ड में आवंटित भूखण्डों के स्थान पर सब्जी यार्ड में उनके व्यवसाय अनुसार आवंटन का प्रस्ताव पारित कर उचित कार्यवाही करने हेतु सचिव को निर्देशित किया गया है। पूर्व में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, जोधपुर द्वारा जन हित याचिका सं. 7038/2016 माधो सिंह कच्छावा व अन्य बनाम राज्य सरकार व अन्य में पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.3.2016 के क्रम में इस बिन्दु पर अति० महाधिवक्ता द्वारा मण्डी समिति की स्थिति को स्पष्ट किया गया था।
अतः अपील अपीलार्थीगण मण्डी समिति को प्रति प्रेषित (रिमाण्ड) कर निर्देशित किया जाता है कि मण्डी समिति अचल सम्पति आवंटन नीति 2005, मण्डी प्रागंण स्थानान्तरण नीति, 2013 एवं इस संबंध में जारी निर्देश तथा मण्डी समिति के द्वारा समय-समय पर लिये गये प्रस्तावों को ध्यान में रखते हुए प्रार्थीगण के प्रकरणों पर उनके व्यवसाय की प्रकृति के अनुरूप भूखण्ड आवंटन/परिवर्तन के संबंध में नियमानुसार कार्यवाही करें।"
The petitioners' basic grievance or for which they have approached this Court, was that notwithstanding the order aforesaid, passed by the Director on 05.12.2016, the respondent No.3 has not allotted the plots to the petitioners in Bhadwasia-Vegetable Mandi.
Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, highlighting the inaction of the respondent No.3 (in not allotting the plots to them in vegetable Mandi), urged that the respondents are bound to follow the order dated 05.12.2016, passed by the Director, more particularly when the same has attained finality.
Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, did not raise serious dispute so far as petitioners' entitlement as dealers dealing in vegetables is concerned; he however submitted that the list issued by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is only a provisional list and since the petitioners had been allotted plots in Fruit Mandi, their cases were not considered for allotment in Bhadwasia-Vegetable Mandi.
He pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petitions, a provisional list has been issued by the respondent No.3, wherein 49 licensees, dealing in vegetables, have been allotted plots, which includes the names of interveners also.
In response to the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, respondent No.3 has filed a reply and taken a rather strange plea that the petitioners were operating in the right side of the Mandi yard, which was essentially meant for dealers in fruits and hence, on 14.06.2016, when the lottery was conducted for Vegetable Mandi and Fruit Mandi, the petitioners' names were included and considered in the list of traders to be shifted to 11 bigha land, earmarked for Bhadvasia-Fruit Mandi.
It is noteworthy that the petitioners' assertion that they are licensees of vegetables and have been dealing in vegetables for last so many years specifically made in paras No.17 and 19 of the memo of writ petitions, has neither been denied by the State- respondents No.1 and 2, nor by the respondent No.3 (Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti) in their reply. Such fact has not even been disputed in the additional affidavit sworn on 21.08.2018, filed by the Secretary.
The said affidavit furnishes a bizarre or unusual explanation for the allotment of plots in the fruit mandi, made to the petitioner. It will not be out of place to reproduce para No.12 of the additional affidavit dated 21.08.2018, which reads thus :
"That, in accordance with the direction given by the learned single judge, the allotment was required to be made strictly in accordance with the Policy of 2013. Since the petitioner was having space in the block where the business of fruit is being carried out, he was considered eligible and was entitled for the block of 165 shops only measuring 12x30. Further, since the consent was not given by all the applicants, the option of lottery was the only option left with the respondents for making allotment."
An appraisal of the above extract, the arguments advanced, the documents placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar, on behalf of respondent No.3, make it abundantly clear that the respondent No.3 had allotted shops to the petitioners in Fruit Mandi, simply because petitioners' shops in the Mandi at Paota were situated amongst 165 shops in Blocks-E, H-II, J-II, K-I and L; the blocks in which fruit dealers were operating.
It has also been argued that in the appeal filed by the petitioners, they had sought a relief that they be allotted shops in Vegetable Mandi instead of Fruit Mandi, which prayer falls in the ambit of change of size of plot, which can be done subsequently, as per clause 3(7) of he Policy of 2013.
The intervener, Mr. Anand Purohit, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vineet Dave, appearing on behalf of interveners, vehemently argued that the petitioners are not entitled to allotment in Vegetable Mandi, as they are not dealing in vegetables.
The stand of the respondents that the petitioners were operating in right side of the Mandi, hence, they were allotted plots in Fruit Mandi is unpalatable, if not preposterous. Such stand does not confirm to logic and hence, cannot be countenanced, particularly when the respondents have created two separate mandis for vegetables and fruits, based on the nature of trade.
The Appellate Authority-the Director has therefore rightly allowed petitioners' appeals, vide his order dated 05.12.2016. The Director has already quashed the order dated 14.07.2016, and the same has attained finality.
Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to consider petitioners' cases as dealers dealing in vegetables and allot the plots in Bhadvasia-Vegetable Mandi.
When this Court completed the dictation of this order, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to fore petitioners' immediate concern/grievance that the Paota Vegetable Mandi is going to be de-notified soon and since the respondent No.3 has not allotted them the plots, they could not construct their shops in new Vegetable Mandi at Bhadvasia. He submitted that allotment of plots and construction of shops at Bhadvasia will take some time and till they are allotted plots and their shops are constructed, he prayed that they may be permitted to carry on their trade at present Mandi at Paota only.
Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed such prayer and submitted that permitting these persons to operate in Paota Mandi would thwart rather stifle the entire process of de-notifying the Paota Mandi and effort of the State to shift the Paota Mandi to Bhadwasia for expanding Roadways Bus Stand and to de-congest Paota Circle.
When the Court asked about some alternative solution, the respondent No.3, Mr. Bhagirath Prajapat, present in person, came out with a proposal that since the respondents are in process of shifting the Mandi, till the rights of the petitioners are determined; they are allotted plots and the allottees raise construction thereupon; he will permit these nine petitioners to operate in new vegetable mandi at Bhadwasia-in an open yard.
Such offer was accepted by Mr. Manoj Bhandari, in presence of some of the petitioners.
Hence, it is ordered that if any further enquiry is to be made, the same be completed by the Secretary as early as possible and the petitioners be allotted shops (if eligible), within a period of two months from today.
In case the petitioners are allotted shops in the vegetable mandi at Bhadwasia, they shall be given reasonable time to construct their shops. Until such time, petitioners (who are allotted plots) will be permitted to operate in the open space provided by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiit.
Needless to observe that petitioners shall surrender their allotment in Fruit Mandi and pay differential amount, if any, within a period of 30 days of receipt of allotment letter.