AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant bunch of writ petitions involves common questions of facts and law and is hence being decided together by this single order.
The petitioners here are all traders holding licenses to run shops in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pali. They have preferred these writ petitions for
assailing the Immovable Property Allotment Policy, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Policy of 2005’) and so also for restraining the
respondents Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pali from recovering/charging allotment fees/rent from the petitioners and to direct them to refund the fees
already collected from them.
Shri Ram Rakh Vyas, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that the entire scheme of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce
Market Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the statute under which, the Market Committee (Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pali) was
constituted and the shops in question were leased out to the petitioners, does not allow for collection/levy of allotment fees/rent and the increase in the
rate thereof being undertaken by the respondents under the garb of the Policy of 2005 which is grossly illegal. He thus urged that the impugned Policy
of 2005 as well as the allotment letters through which, the petitioners were coerced into agreeing for deposit of allotment fees/rent, deserve to be
quashed/struck down/modified suitably. He urged that the petitioners are already paying proportional Mandi fees to the respondents as per the trade of
agricultural produce being done by them in the Mandi yard. Thus, the Mandi is already collecting huge sums of money by way of Mandi Samiti from
the petitioners in lieu of the licenses of the shops in question and thus, they cannot be allowed to simultaneously double charge the petitioners in this
manner. As per Shri Vyas, the action of the respondents in collecting amounts from the petitioners under both the heads is nothing but subjecting them
to double jeopardy which is clearly violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. He thus
urged that the writ petitions may be accepted and the impugned Policy of 2005 as well as the relevant clauses of the agreement executed inter-se
between the petitioners and the respondent No.3 whereby, the petitioners are being double charged in the name of allotment fees/rent, may be struck
off.
Per contra, Shri Ravi Bhansali learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Dhanesh Saraswat Advocate representing the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and
Shri Bharat Dutt Sharma, Dy.G.C. learned counsel representing the respondent Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Rajasthan vehemently opposed
the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ counsel. They urged that so far as the Policy of 2005 is concerned, the same has already been
affirmed in various decisions rendered by the Single Bench as well as Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. They relied upon the judgment dated
7.1.2010 passed by Single Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11910/2009 “Kota Grain and Seeds
Merchant Association Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.†and another Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of “Timber Vyapar Sanchalan
Samiti, Alwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.†reported in 1996(2) WLC(Raj.). 514 and urged that the rent/allotment fee is charged in lieu of
providing licence for allotting the shops whereas, the market fee is charged proportional upon the trade done in the Mandi and both the charges are
lawfully simultaneously leviable by the Mandi Samiti as being in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1961 as well as the Rajasthan
Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). They further submitted that after the introduction of the
Immovable Property Allotment Policy 2005 (supra), the State Government issued an order dated 22.8.2008 giving option to all the allottees having
shops/premises on licence to get their allotments converted into 99 years lease. Those who opted to go for such allotment were discharged of the
burden of paying monthly rentals. However, it was clearly provided in the said order that in case, the allottees desire to continue to operate their shops
on licence basis, then they would be required to pay increased allotment fees every year with 5% compound interest from 1.4.2007 onwards. They
urged that if at all, the petitioners were inclined to avoid payment of the recurring licence fee rent, they could have opted for getting the shops
permanently allotted on 99 years lease and thereafter, the Mandi would not have demanded any recurring allotment fees/rent from them. They thus
urged that the writ petitions deserve to be rejected.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record.
Both the issues which are sought to be canvassed in this bunch of writ petitions stand concluded by the above-referred judgments rendered by the
learned Single Bench of this Court. Furthermore, Rule 58 of the Rules of 1963 clearly stipulates that the Market Committee shall also levy and collect
licence fee from traders, brokers, weighmen, measurers, surveyors, warehousemen and other persons operating in the market. In addition, as per
Section 17 of the Act, the Mandi is also authorized to collect market fees.
Ex-facie, it is apparent that so far as the Policy of 2005 is concerned, the challenge laid thereto is untenable for the simple reason that the Policy has
been affirmed in numerous judgments of this Court including the judgment in the case of Kota Grain and Seeds Merchant Association (supra).
Furthermore, the plea raised by the petitioners’ counsel that the Mandi cannot collect market fee as well as licence fee/rent from the shopkeepers
is per-se without foundation. The shops in question were temporarily allotted to the petitioners on licence basis. The Mandi Samiti definitely has a
right to collect recurring licence fee/rent in lieu of such allotment. Such licence fee was being voluntarily paid by the petitioners from well before
coming into force of the Policy of 2005. They voluntarily executed the licence deeds/agreements almost 8 to 10 years before introduction of the Policy
of 2005 and in such conveyances, they categorically agreed to pay monthly recurring licence fees/rent to the Mandi Samiti. While seeking allotment of
the shops and executing the agreements, the petitioners did not raise any objection about the condition of payment of rent/licence fee. In this
background, the petitioners are estopped from raising any plea regarding they having been coerced into signing the licence deeds after this gross delay
of nearly 10 years from the date of execution. Learned Single Bench at Jaipur considered the very same controversy in the case of Kota Grain and
Seeds Merchant Association (supra) and while relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of “Fruit Commission Agents Association &
Ors. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.†reported in AIR 2008 SC 34, it was held that scope of judicial review in a policy matter of price fixation
by the Mandi is not available to the High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction. The Court held as below:
“So far as first issue regarding increase of allotment fee (rent) 5% annually is concerned, the same is as per the terms and conditions of the
allotment letter itself. Petitioners having agreed to a condition for revision of rent are estopped to raise this issue more so when it does not go against
any statutory provision. Revision of rent is not to earn profit and otherwise it is not taken as one of the grounds in any of the writ petitions. Thus
neither the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court nor of the Division Bench of this court on the issue applies. The maintenance of the Mandi yards
is by the Mandi Samities thus yearly enhancement of rent by 5% pursuant to the policy decision cannot be nullified. This court cannot interfere in the
policy decision of the State respondents unless found to be contrary to the statutory provisions or mala fide. The aforesaid aspect has well been
considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh (supra). Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the policy
decision of 5% increase annually.
Even previously the revision was made to the extent of 9% and was accepted by the petitioners. In view of aforesaid discussion I am not inclined to
accept the first argument.â€
Thus, as the issue raised in this bunch of writ petitions stands concluded by the Single Bench decision of this Court in the above matter, the petitioners
cannot be allowed to raise the same controversy again. Furthermore, with the introduction of the Policy of 2005, the petitioners had been given option
to choose for permanent allotment (allotment on lease of 99 years) of the shops in question. Manifestly, as per the pleadings of the petitioners, they
have not opted for the same. Thus, the petitioners are unquestionably bound by the terms of agreements executed between them and the respondent
Mandi Samiti and they cannot be allowed to challenge/question the same at this highly belated stage.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I find no merit in these writ petitions, which are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.