M/S RAM SINGH VIJAY PAL SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 01-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS RAM SINGH VIJA Y PAL SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
" 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
MAY 1,2007 
B 
[G.P. MA THUR AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
U.P Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyan, 1964-ss.12 (1) and 26-L(/)-
Allotment of shops, godowns etc. to traders by Mandi Parishad-Letter from 
c 
Director of the Parishad that the shops etc. would be transferred to the 
traders on hire-purchase basis-Subsequent notice to traders to enter into 
agreement where-under the shops etc. to be given to them on rental basis-
Notice challenged-Dismissal thereof by High Court-On appeal, held: 
Traders have no legal right to claim the transfer of the property to them on 
hire-purchase basis-Decision of transfer on hire-purchase basis by Mandi 
D Parishad not proved-Letter by Director to that effect was without authority-
Mode of transfer, being a policy decision, Court cannot interfere therewith-
Agricultural Market Produce-Judicial Review-Scope of in policy decision. 
Writ-Writ of Mandamus-When can be issued. 
E 
A Writ Petition seeking Writ of Mandamus was filed by traders carrying 
on business in agricultural produce. Their case was that they shifted their 
business from the old place to new place on the assurance that policy was 
being chalked out to give the shops and sheds etc. to the license holders on 
hire-purchase basis. Thereafter a letter was given to them by the Director, 
F 
Mandi Parishad, to the effect that shops, sheds etc. would be given to the 
license holders on hire-purchase basis. They also made improvements in the 
shops etc. with the prior approval of Mandi Parishad. Thereafter they got a 
notice from the respondents to execute an agreement with the Mandi Samiti, 
where under shops etc. would be given to them on rental basis. High Court 
summarily dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The proviso the sub-section (1) of Section 12 of U.P. Krishi 
• 
Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, would show that the Mandi Samiti 
(Committee) is not empowered to transfer any immovable property without 
H 
1060 
RAMSINGHVIJAYPALSINGHv. STATEOFU.P. 
1061 
j 
the previous approval in writing of the State Agricultural Produce Markets A 
Board (Mandi Parishad). Section 26-L of the Act deals with the powers and 
functions of the Board. The Director of Mandi Parishad( Board) has not been 
conferred any power whereunder he may issue a general direction that he 
shops, godowns and sheds of the Mandi Parishad shall be transferred or sold 
to the traders on hire-purchase basis. Therefore, the appellants can derive B 
no benefit from the letter of the Director wherein it was mentioned that a 
decision had been taken to give the shops on hire-purchase basis. In the 
counter affidavit the respondents have specifically asserted that the Board 
never took any such decision to sell the property of the Mandi Samiti to the 
traders either on hire-purchase basis or otherwise. No, document has been 
filed to show that the Board ever took any such decision. The appellants, c 
therefore, have no legal right to claim that the property be given to them on 
hire-purchase basis. (Para 8) (1066-A-E) 
2. The appellants have not filed any document whatsoever to show that 
either it was held out or any assurance was given by the respondents that the 
business premises would be sold to the petitioners on hire-purchase basis or D 
otherwise. 
t 
Whether the shops, godowns and sheds of the Mandi Samiti, which have 
been allotted to the appellants, should be given to them on lease or should be 
sold to them on hire-purchase basis, is purely a matter of policy as the property E 
belongs to the Mandi Samiti or the Mandi Parishad. It is for the Mandi Samiti 
or Mandi Parishad to take a policy decision in this regard and the Court cannot 
examine the correctness or otherwise of the said policy except in a very 
narrow compass. [Para 9) (1066-H; 1067-A-B) 
Netai Bagv. State of West Bengal, [2000) 8 SCC 262; BALCO Employees F 
Union v. Union of India, [2002) 2 SCC 333; Federation of Railway Officers 
Association v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289, relied on. 
3. In order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do 
something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal 
duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its G 
~ 
performance. (Para 11) 
Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd v. Sipahi 
Singh, AIR (1977) SC 2149, relied on. 
CIVIL APPEL

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