M/S HANDE WAVARE & CO. versus RAMCHANDRA VITTHAL DONGRE & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 181 · Decided: 10-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
181
M/S HANDE WAVARE & CO.
v.
RAMCHANDRA VITTHAL DONGRE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5350 of 2019)
JULY 10, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1963– ss.43, 52B – Government of
Maharashtra decided to shift the wholesale fruit and vegetable
market situated in Crawford Market to Vashi, Navi Mumbai to reduce
the congestion – Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC-
respondent no.5) constructed two types of galas/shops, small galas
and big galas – Committee appointed to suggest the norms to allot
the galas/shops– Dispute pertains to the allotment of large gala/
shop no.F-158 in lottery conducted by APMC– Appellant selected
in the lottery for allotment of the said gala – Decision to conduct
lottery challenged by respondent no.1 before respondent no.6 –
Allotment by lottery to the appellant set aside – Order of respondent
no.6 set aside and the decision of APMC drawing the lottery and
allotting the said gala to the appellant was confirmed – Respondent
No.2 filed writ petition – Allowed by High Court while directing
APMC to allot the said gala in his favour  – On appeal, held: As
per the norms, no trader who has not paid the booking amount can
get large gala or part thereof or more than one small gala –
Respondent no.2 himself neither made the application before the
cut-off date nor paid the booking amount – Amount paid by father
of respondent no.2 was sought to be transferred to respondent no.2
– Transfer of amount by a person who booked the gala to another
person is not permissible as per the norms fixed by the Committee –
Respondent No.2 cannot claim allotment of Gala No.F-158 dehors
the norms fixed by the Committee which were directed to be strictly
followed by the High Court – Neither respondent no.1 nor
respondent no.2 are eligible to claim allotment of large gala –
Appellant having paid the market fee of Rs.9844.10 in the time frame
of 1985-86 to 1994-95 which is less by Rs.155.90 to the required
norm of Rs.10,000/-, falls under the category of “marginally falls
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 181
    181
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
short of the norms” and is entitled to make claim for the large gala
– Findings of the High Court that one ‘GS’, who was not considered
eligible to participate in the lottery, is not eligible to claim large
gala set aside – Directions issued – Constitution of India – Art.14.
Constitution of India – Art.14 – Enforcement of, in negative
manner – Held: Not permissible – If any illegality or irregularity
has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individual
or wrong order has been passed by a forum, the same illegality or
irregularity cannot be perpetuated on the ground of discrimination
or hardship.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Claim of respondent No.2- Respondent No.2
himself did not make any application for booking of any gala nor
did he pay any amount for booking the gala.  As per the norms
suggested by Daud Committee, there was no scope of transfer of
booking of gala and the booking amount from one person to
another.  In the impugned judgment, the High Court held that
the right of respondent No.2 to get large gala has been crystallised
by the order dated 24.09.2002 of Director of Agricultural
Marketing and when the large Gala No.F-158 became available,
APMC ought to have allotted the same to respondent No.2. As
per the norms, no trader who has not paid the booking amount
can get a large gala or part thereof or more than one small gala.
Transfer of amount by a person who booked the gala to another
person is not permissible as per the norms fixed by Daud
Committee. Merely because, in other cases, gala booked in the
name of one person is transferred in the name of another person,
it cannot be the reason to adopt the same irregularity in the case
of the second respondent also. If any illegality or irregularity has
been committed in favour of any individual or group of individual
or wrong order has been passed by a forum, the same illegality
or irregularity cannot be perpetuated on the ground of
discrimination or hardship.  Merely because, in few other cases,
gala booked in the name of one person was transferred in the
name of other persons in deviation from the norms fixed by Daud
Committee, the Director, Marketing was not right in holding that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
183
the second respondent is entitled for allotment of large gala by
transfer of boo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.