The President,Car Dealers Association vs Chandigarh Admn

Surya Kant, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal assails the order dated 06th May, 2014 whereby learned Single Judge has issued certain directions to the Chandigarh Administration and its Municipal Corporation for the purpose of leasing out and/or permitting the use of open space in Sector 7, Chandigarh for running Car Bazar on Sundays.

The Municipal Corporation has permitted the use of open space which is essentially meant for parking of vehicles in front of commercial establishments built up on the Madhya Marg in Sector 7, Chandigarh, to hold Car Bazar on Sundays, for which only nominal charges were taken from some of the members of the Car Dealers'' Association [Registered]. The writ-petitioners [now private respondents] are also in the business of sale and purchase of old Cars and their grievance was against the alleged favouritism or preference given to the members of the appellant-Association. They challenged the order dated 08th January, 2014 of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh which candidly acknowledged the preferential treatment given to 43 members of appellant-association but as regard to the other available sites, it was decided to put them to ''open auction''.

Learned Single Judge, after hearing all the stake-holders has observed that there was no justification for the Corporation to give any preferential permission to 43 members of the Association for running the Car Bazar at the subject site. The Corporation though also took a stand before the learned Single Judge that it was willing to review the entire process, but the learned Single Judge viewed that owing to its track record, it was desirable to issue certain directions.

Consequently, the learned Single Judge has directed that [i] the sites shall be allotted by way of auction; [ii] a comprehensive policy be framed by the end of June, 2014 for that purpose; [iii] permission to hold Car Bazar should be for a specific period and not for every Sunday; [iv] it should be ensured that the permission is granted to the persons of credential so that bona-fide purchasers are not cheated; and [v] members of the Car Dealers'' Association can not be permitted to claim preferential right qua 43 sites.

It is contended on behalf of the aggrieved Association that the principles emerging out of two decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Labha Ram and Sons and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, were not kept in view by the learned Single Judge as the members of the appellant - Association are entitled to preferential treatment, for they are running the Car Bazar for the last more than 30 years and that the direction to formulate the policy in a particular manner is, beyond the powers of writ Court.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions, it appears to us that the principles laid down in Labha Ram''s case [supra] are inapplicable in the instant case. That was a case where the Licencees under the Punjab Agricultural Market Produce Act, 1961 were running their business from self-owned or leased out premises within the notified ''Market Area'' and their business establishments came to be closed as the market area was de-notified on establishment of a new Grain Market. It was in this back-drop that the Apex Court directed to provide preference to the old licensees in the matter of allotment of building or sites in the new Grain Market. In the instant case, there is no licensing policy to run the Car Bazar nor any notified area for that purpose. No allotment of site has ever been made. It was only a case of permission on payment of charges that an ad-hoc arrangement has continued for good amount of years.

The Municipal Corporation itself has conceded the necessity to regulate the business of Car Bazar even without any command by the learned Single Judge. It is they who came forward and suggested to review the entire process. The order dated 08th January, 2014 [Annexure P-7] challenged before the learned Single Judge also says that now the sites need to be put to use by way of public auction, for which even an advertisement was issued.

There is no gain saying that Car Bazar is essentially a commercial activity. It needs to be regulated and the policy-framework for such regulation must be transparent and consistent with the equality clause. The permission, licence or allotment of a site to carry out commercial activity can not be fair, just and reasonable unless equal opportunity is given to all the eligible aspirants, for which auction is undoubtedly one of the well known method. The occasion to consider any other alternative modicum would arise only if the public auction does not achieve the desired results or leads to some other evils. No interference in the directions issued by learned Single Judge is, thus, called for at this stage.

Once the permission to use a site is to be granted through auction etc. by considering the claim of all those who are eligible and willing to participate, it is obvious that no preferential treatment can be given to the members of appellant Association merely because they are old timers in the business. The direction issued by learned Single Judge prohibiting favouritism thus, is also in conformity with the first direction that the permission be granted by way of auction.

However, the question as to whether the permission is to be granted for a specific period or for every Sunday, essentially falls within the domain of the policy makers. It is for them to decide it in public interest and for regulating the activity. The direction issued by learned Single Judge in this regard is set aside/modified.

Let the subject-policy for carrying out the business of Car Bazar be framed as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Till then present arrangement shall continue.

The appeal stands decided in above terms.