LexDELHI AGRJCULTURAL MARKETING BOARD versus HAKUMAT RAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 3 S.C.R. 790 DELHI AGRJCULTURAL MARKETING BOARD v. HAKUMAT RAI (Civil Appeal No. 8267 of2016) AUGUST 24, 2016 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Agricultural Produce Market Committee: Allot111ent of shop - Respondent-Writ petitioner a commission agent of fruits and vegetables at Phool Mandi, Darya Gan} - The Mandi got de-notified in 1998 by Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board and Commission agents were asked to shift - Respondent- Writ petitioner made several representations for alternative shop but was not successfiil - High Court allowed writ petition on ground that the petitioner had been waiting for allotment of shop since 1985 - On appeal, held: Gazipur Mandi shops were for the allotment of shops to persons who have been displaced from Shahadra, in which category the case of the respondent did not fall - It was not the ca.1,• of writ petitioner that he had been discriminated against or otherwise denied fairness in action - Thus, writ petitioner had no legal right for allotment of a shop at Gazipur - Howeve1; since his claim had been under consideration since long, he be considered with other eligible applicants, for allotment of shop, subject to availability. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: As per notification dated 2•d September, 2014, no license is required for the writ petitioner to continue at the present place of his business. Thus, the respondent-writ petitioner is no longer to be displaced from his existing place of business. He was duly considered for the available shops in Okhla with the persons displaced from Phool Mandi, Darya Ganj who were eligible for an alternative allotment of shops, but he could not succeed. Gazipur Mandi shops are for the allotment of shops to persons who have been displaced from Shahadra, in which category the case of the respondent does not fall. It is 790 DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD v. HAKUMAT RAJ not the case of the writ petitioner that he has been discriminated against or otherwise denied fairness in action. Thus, the writ petitioner has no legal right for allotment of a shop at Gazipur. However, since his claim has been under consideration since long, he could be considered with other eligible applicants, for allotment of shop, subject to a surplus shop being available. The impugned order is modified to the effect that the case of the respondent, along with all eligible persons, be considered, subject to the availability of a shop. [Paras 6, 8 and 9] [794-H; 796-A-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8267 of 2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 535 of2015. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Dr. Monika Gusain, Anil Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant. 791 A B c Pallav Sishodia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Vaishalee Mehra, Pawan Kishore D Singh, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. I. leave granted. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2016 in LPANo.535 of2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order of the Single Judge directing the appellant herein to allot a shop to. the respondent· writ petitioner in Gazipur Mandi and also issue of category 'B' license to him under the provisions of Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998. 2. The above order came to be passed on the writ petition filed by the respondent. The averments in the petition are: The writ petitioner was a commission agent of fruits and vegetables at Phool Mandi, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The appellant- Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board was a statutory body to regulate the marketing of agricultural produce and had declared certain areas as market areas. In the year 1998, the said Mandi at Darya Ganj was de-notified and the commission agents were to be shifted from there. License of the petitioner was not renewed as the market was shifted to Okhla where a new market was to be constructed by the Delhi Development Authority (DOA). E F G H 792 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C .R. The petitioner was included in the list of eligible persons but was not successful in the draw of lots held in 1987. Those who were allotted shops at Okhla were shifted from Darya Ganj in the year 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner made a repr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.