WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 16-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS & ORS. ETC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 8015-8016 of 2019)
OCTOBER 16, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and
Transfer of Plots) (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 – Punjab State
Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules,
1999 – r. 3 (iii) and (iv) – Validity of Rules 1999 and 2008 – The
old grain market was de-notified and a new market was set up –
Dealers of the old market applied for allotment of plots/shops in
the new grain market – Their applications were rejected – Writ
Petitions – High Court did not grant relief in writ petitions decided
in 2010 – However, in another set of writ petitions decided in 2015
& 2016 the High Court granted relief to the dealers – Appellants
Contended that the Rules were against the Labha Ram’s Case –
On appeal, held: When Labha Ram’s case was decided there was
no provision for preferential allotment to the old dealers – After
this judgment that the 1999 Rules were notified – Thereafter (First
amendment) Rules 2008 come into existence, which were much more
liberal – Now, 50 % of the shops were reserved for the existing
licence holders and there were two important conditions; (i) that
a person must have licence for 3 years and (ii) that the dealer must
have an annual turnover of Rs. 5 lakhs in each of the three
financial years – If there were no conditions like the one laid down
in the Rules, any person would get a licence, not transact any
business, and after a few months apply for a new shop at a
concessional rate – That would defeat the purpose which was
sought to be highlighted by Labha Ram and Prem Chand Case –
Thus, these Rules did not violate any of the provisions of the
Constitution including Art. 14 and are legally valid – Punjab
Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961.
Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and
Transfer of Plots) (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 – Punjab State
Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules,
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 754
754
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
1999 – r.3 (iii) – Allotment of Plots/ Shops in the new market set
up – Dealers of the old market applied for allotment of plots/ shops
in the new market – Applications were rejected – Writ Petitions –
In the group of petitions which were decided in 2015 & 2016 the
High Court granted some relief to the dealers – The High Court
held that a person can furnish adequate proof of his working in
the denotified market yard even if he did not hold a licence on
the cut-off date – The market boards filed appeal before the
Supreme Court – Held: r. 3 (iii), which provides that to prove the
turnover, the dealer is required to produce form ‘M’ which is in
the nature of a daily return to be filed by the licensed dealer with
the Market Committee/ Board u/rr. 29(3) and 31(1) of the Punjab
Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 – In the
absence of Form ‘M’ (daily return) the dealer can rely on form ‘H’
(auction register) and ‘J’ (sale voucher) to prove his turnover –
These have to be read along with form ‘F’ which is the form of
renewal of licence – However, High Court held that form ‘F’
(renewal of licence) was not the only document required for
determination of eligibility of an old licensee for allotment of a
plot, but the independent adequate proof of working in denotified
market yard was required to be considered to determine the
eligibility of the old licenses for allotment of plots – Reasoning of
High Court cannot be accepted – Licence is mandatory and no
person can carry on business in an agricultural market without
having a licence – The Rules provide that the renewal of the licence
should be applied one month before the expiry of the previous
licence – Further, a person who has not renewed his licence without
justifiable cause, cannot get any benefit – Punjab Agricultural
Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court is concerned with two sets of Rules,
viz., the 1999 Rules and the 2008 Rules. The case of the
appellants is that the Rules are against the judgment of this
Court in Labha Ram and Sons and Others vs. State of Punjab and
Others wherein while interpreting the provisions of the Punjab
New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Act,
1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960), it was
held that the Government has an obligation to provide suf

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