Vijay Raj Kailash Chandra and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Anil Dev Singh, C.J.—These appeals raise common questions of fact and law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

The appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17th January, 2003 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3915/2002 etc. By that order the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions basing its decision on an earlier judgment rendered in Marudhar Trading Co., Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan dated 16th January, 2003, rendered in SBCW Petition No. 3916/2002.

The State Government established Krishi Upaj Mandi Samities at District Jodhpur and at various other places. This was done in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 6 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short ''the Act''),

In the instant appeals we are concerned with Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur. The Samiti constructed shops in the Municipal Market Yards. Initially the Samiti invited applications for allotment of shops to traders who were eligible for allotment on the basis of original policy, taking into account the length of business, turnover and market fee paid by the traders. Subsequently, this Policy was changed and the Samiti started allotment of shops by way of auction.

The appellants before us were allotted shops after they participated in the auctions as per the following details :--

�-la- uke QeZ nqdku la- vf/klwpuk fuykeh fnukad fuykeh fnukad dCtk frfFk ,xzhesaV fnukad cdk;k jkf''k ekg tqykbZ 2003 rd

1 ftrsUnz V�sMlZ bZ&r`rh;&1 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&10&99 10&4&2000 10&4&200 25250

2 nyky guoarjkt bZ&r`rh;&2 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 25250

3 Hkxorh Vs�fMax dEiuh bZ&r`rh;&3 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 23750

4 xqykcpan ,.M dEiuh bZ&r`rh;&4 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 42820

5 y{eh ,tsUlht

,.M dEiuh

bZ&r`rh;&10 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 24600

6 Hkxorh czksdlZ bZ&r`rh;&11 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 27760

7 izdk''k V�sfMax dEiuh bZ&r`rh;&13 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 29500

8 egky{eh Vs�MlZ bZ&r`rh;&14 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 10&4&2000 10&4&2000 27600

9 fo".kq czksdlZ bZ&r`rh;&15 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&10&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 81960

10 egkohj V�sfMax dEiuh bZ&r`rh;&16 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 91460

11 Hkokuh czksdlZ bZ&r`rh;&18 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 67940

12 vt; czksdlZ bZ&r`rh;&20 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 23&11&1995 23&11&1995 84700

13 pkaney vfHk"ksd th&r`rh;&20 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&8&95 10&4&2000 10&4&2000 23598

14 fjgrs"k V�sfMax dEiuh ,p&1 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&10&99 10&4&2000 10&4&2000 21000

15 dapu gk�l ,p&11 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&10&99 10&4&2000 10&4&2000 &&

16 foosd bUVjizkbZtst ,p&19 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&10&99 10&4&2000 10&4&2000 &&

17 fot;jkt dSyklpan MCyw&5 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 28&10&99 29&1&1997 3&3&1997 &&

18 ew:/kj V�sfMx dEiuh MCyw&7 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 26&8&95 30&1&2000 30&1&2000 121000

19 ckcqyky paikyky MCyw&10 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 14&7&00 29&1&1997 29&1&1997 &&

20 dklyhoky cznlZ MCyw&11 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 26&8&95 29&1&1997 29&1&1997 &&

21 vfuydqekj fouksndqekj MCyw&12 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 26&8&95 29&1&1997 29&1&1997 &&

22 vksdpan lqjs''kdqekj MCyw&18 26&4&95 o 7&6&95 26&8&95 29&1&1997 29&1&1997 &&

uksV %& 1 �-la- 13 esa n''kkZ;h x;h jkf''k foyEc ''kqYd dh gS A SD

2 gj ekg dh 20 rkjh[k rd vkoaVu ''kqYd@fdjk;k tek djkus dk izko/kku gS A lfpo

3 foyEc ''kqYd 3 izfr''kr dh nj ls i`Fkd ls olqyh dh tkuh gS A �f"k mit e.Mh lfefr �vukt�

4 x`gdj i`Fkd ls lEcfU/kr QeZ dks tek djokuk gS A tks/kiqj

6-7. As is apparent from above chart, the appellants and the Samiti entered into an agreements to effectuate and formalise the arrangements between them resulting from the acceptance of the appellants bids made at the above auctions. The appellants in the beginning honoured the agreements and paid the rent of the shops which were allotted to them. It appears that after sometime they became wiser and stopped paying the rent on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court in Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra & Co. v. State 2002 (3) WLC (Raj) 207 : AIR 2002 Raj 285, did not approve of the system of auction. This judgment was rendered by the Division Bench on 6th March, 2002, much after the appellants had taken possession of the shops and the execution of the agreements. Since the appellants had ceased to pay the rent, the Market Samiti issued notice to the appellants to vacate the premises. The appellants, being aggrieved by the notice issued to them by the Market Samiti, filed the aforementioned writ petitions in this Court.

As already pointed out, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions relying upon the earlier single Bench decision of this Court in Marudhar Trading Co., Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan (SBCW) Petition No. 3916/2002).

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is not in dispute that the appellants participated in the auctions held by the Market Samiti and as a result of the bids given by them they were put in possession of the shops. They also executed agreements with the Market Samiti in consonance with the basis on which their bids were accepted.

Having taken benefit of the acceptance of their bids and consequent possession of the shops the appellants cannot turn back and Urge that the policy of putting the shops to auction was untenable. The learned single Judge applying the principle of ac quiescence, rejected the challenge of the appellants. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, Pannalal Binjraj Vs. Union of india (UOI), Major Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. Latafat Ullah Khan and Others, , Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, State of Punjab and others Vs. Krishan Niwas, State of Orissa and others Vs. Narain Prasad and others, etc. etc., State of Rajasthan v. Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar & Party, (2000) 4 JT (SC) 186 : (AIR 2000 SC 1441) and Kali Prasad and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, wherein it was held that once an order is passed and accepted by the party and from that order it derives benefit and advantage for sometime, the party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of that order. The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly disallowed the appellants from assailing the validity of the policy of auction by virtue of which they have been deriving benefit of the possession of the shops and took advantage by utilising them for trading purpose. The parties entered into the bargain on the footing that the appellant shall pay the agreed rent based on bids given by them in open auction. Since the appellants seek to wriggle out of their basic obligation, the entire bargain will perish. In that event, as a necessary corollary the appellants will be required to give up the possession of the shops.

It is pertinent to point out that the appellants were allotted shops by virtue of the auction held on 28th Oct. 1999 and 26th August, 1995. Vishnu Brokers. Kanchan House and Vijay Raj Kailash Chand were put in possession on 10th of April, 2000 and 29th January, 1997 respectively. After having enjoyed the possession of the shops and having derived benefit of being able to trade in the shops, they stopped paying the rent and challenged the policy only in Sept. 2002. The writ petitions, therefore, were clearly barred by laches.

The reliance of learned counsel for the appellants to the Division Bench judgment in M/s. Marudhar Trading Co., Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan (supra), is of no avail to the appellants inasmuch as the decision was rendered much after the allocation of shops to the appellants. In that case the writ petition was filed by traders who had not been allotted the shops and they were seeking allotment on the basis of merit which, according to the earlier policy was to be determined on the basis of length of licence, turnover and market fee paid by the traders. That petition was not filed by the allottees who had secured possession of the shops as a result of the acceptance of their bids at the auction. The learned single Judge had given option to the appellants to vacate the shops and to join the traders who were waiting in the queue for their turn on the basis of the merit list. The appellants declined the offer. Even today, the same offer was made to the appellants but the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants were not willing to vacate the premises.

Having secured the shops on priority basis by jumping over the queue, the appellants cannot now be allowed to challenge the fixation of rent which was the result of the bids which were given by them at the auction.

In the circumstances, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.