Full Judgment Text
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 26.02.2016
% Pronounced on: 26.04.2016
+ LPA 867/2015 & CM No.28971/2015
RAM DARAS AND ORS. ..Appellants
Versus
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..Respondents
+ LPA 879/2015 & CM Nos.29681-82/2015
JAGAN NATH SHARMA AND ANR ..Appellants
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ORS. ..Respondents
Present: Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rohit Sharma, Adv. for
the appellants.
Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC with Ms.Neelam, Adv.
for the GNCTD, Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for APMC.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. These two appeals are filed seeking to impugn the order dated
09.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions
of the petitioners.
2. For the purpose of narration of the facts reference is being made to the
facts as stated by the appellant/petitioner in LPA 867/2015.
3. It was the contention of the appellant in the writ petition that the
appellants are holding valid licenses issued by Agricultural Produce Market
LPA 867/2015 & 879/2015 Page 1 of 7
Committee/Respondent no.4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘APMC’) for sale
and purchase of sabzi/vegetables in Nasirpur Sabzi Mandi, Palam, New
Delhi. It was further stated that at a certain point of time, though the exact
date is not mentioned, an affidavit was sought from all the license holders
indicating their willingness to shift their business/trade at a new site at
Goyla Khurd under the supervision and control of APMC, Keshopur, Delhi.
The appellants also claim to have given their affidavits as sought for.
4. It was further urged that the appellants are now being denied their
right to livelihood and are not being permitted to pursue their business of
vending/selling vegetables/sabzi at Nasirpur Sabzi Mandi despite having a
valid license. It is urged that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary
inasmuch as if the appellants are not allowed to carry on their business of
vending vegetables at the Sabzi Mandi they would not be able to sustain
themselves or their families. Hence, the writ petition was filed seeking a
Writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents not to harass the appellants
who are holding valid license to carry on their business of vending
vegetables at Nasirpur Mandi, Palam, New Delhi.
5. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants which is the basis of LPA
No.879/2015 is also based on similar facts.
6. The ‘APMC’ Keshopur filed its counter-affidavit before the learned
Single Judge. It was pointed out in the affidavit that the ‘APMC’ was
constituted on 29.01.2001 under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing
Regulations Act, 1998. The committee is a body corporate constituted to
provide facilities to farmers and persons visiting the market. It was urged
that many retailers/traders are selling fruits and vegetables on the roadside
by occupying government land. Some of these persons are now insisting that
LPA 867/2015 & 879/2015 Page 2 of 7
the government should provide them alternate sites to carry on their
business. It was urged that persons carrying on business of traders or
retailers, if they fulfilled the required conditions were given category A or
category E licenses. It was stated that as per regulations, Traders
(wholesalers) required Category A license in the market area and retailers
having established premises for carrying on their business and selling to
consumers only in the market area excluding principal and subsidiary
market required category E license. The commission agent and brokers
operating in principal or subsidiary markets required B and C category
licenses respectively.
7. After the Keshopur Market was constituted in 2001 the traders and
commission agents who were having license and carrying out their business
at Tilak Nagar, Chaukhandi Market were shifted to Keshopur and were
allotted shops to carry on their business activities.
8. It was further urged that the Lieutenant Governor in exercise of
powers conferred under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing
Regulation Act, 1998 made certain amendments in the earlier Notification
and declared that regulation of marketing of fruit and vegetables shall cease
beyond the markets/market yards/sub-yards of the respective marketing
committees, namely, APMC MNI Azadpur, APMC Keshopur and APMC
Shahdara with immediate effect.
9. As a result of the de-notification, Nasirpur Mandi now seized to be
linked to APMC Keshopur, being beyond its marketing yard/sub-yard.
Individuals carrying out their business outside the marketing yard/sub-yard
do not require any license from APMC and APMC has no control over
them. It was confirmed that APMC would not challan the appellants for
LPA 867/2015 & 879/2015 Page 3 of 7
carrying on their business activities without any license outside the
marketing yard. However, land owning agencies on whose land the
appellants may have been sitting will be free to take appropriate action
against the individuals as the said individuals have no legal right to sit and
carry out business on government land. It was urged that some of the traders
earlier having taken license from APMC, Keshopur continued to illegally sit
on government land for carrying on their business which land belongs to
Deputy Commissioner, Panchayat, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
10. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment disposed off
various writ petitions pertaining to different APMCs. However, the case of
the appellants was dealt with separately. The impugned order notes that
nd
prior to 2 September, 2014 a license was required for carrying on business
in agricultural produce not only within the market yards but anywhere in
th
Delhi. However, in view of Notification dated 2 September, 2014
regulations of marketing of fruits and vegetables has ceased beyond the
markets/market yards/sub-yards of the respective Marketing Committees
including APMC Keshopur. Now a license is required only to carry out
business in agricultural produce from the market yards. The impugned order
further notes that the admitted fact is that the appellants do not have a title to
the land over which they are carrying on their business. It was concluded
that the action of the respondents was essentially that of evicting
encroachments on government land. Hence, the writ petition of the
appellants was dismissed.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants in LPA No.867/2015 has relied upon two earlier
orders of this Court passed in different Writ Petitions on 29.03.2006 and
LPA 867/2015 & 879/2015 Page 4 of 7
13.3.2014 respectively. It has been urged that both the orders were passed
by co-ordinate Benches and the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge is at variance with the said orders passed by a co-ordinate
Bench. Relying on the said two orders it is urged that the appellants should
also be entitled to similar treatment and would be entitled to an alternative
area to carry on their business and until an alternative area is allotted the
appellants are entitled to carry on business at the existing site. Reliance is
also placed on an order passed in WP(C)7841/2014 dated 28.01.2015 where
a direction was sought that Nasirpur Mandi/Manglapuri Market be declared
a sub-yard of APMC Keshopur at the existing site of Nasirpur village or at
an alternative site. The Hon’ble Court while granting an ex parte injunction
order to maintain status quo had noted that in W.P.(C) 772/2013 pursuant to
order dated 13.3.2014 passed by this Court, Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi
was directed to convene a meeting to resolve disputes between the parties
and that a series of meeting to that effect have been held. It has been urged
that the petitioners would be entitled to an alternative plot.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has reiterated the
submissions made in the counter-affidavit by APMC. He has further pointed
out that pursuant to the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge,
demolitions have been carried out and the appellants have been evicted from
government land which they were unauthorisedly occupying. Reliance is
placed on a report stating that this was done on 16.10.2015.
13. A perusal of the above facts and submissions made by the appellants
will show that the petition and submissions of the appellant are bereft of
details and substantial facts to show any equity in favour of the appellants.
Admittedly, the appellants have been carrying on business on government
LPA 867/2015 & 879/2015 Page 5 of 7
land without having any rights i.e. leasehold/license rights whatsoever. In
the light of the new Regulations coming into force on 2.9.2014, a license is
now required only for carrying on business in agricultural produce from the
market yards. The area where the appellants were carrying on their work is
not part of any of the notified yards. In the light of the changed Regulations
regarding licenses and the fact that the appellants are carrying on business
on government land, there is no equity in favour of the appellants.
14. Coming to the orders relied upon by the learned senior counsel earlier
passed by learned Single Judges of this Court in different Writ Petitions. The
order dated 29.3.2006 passed in W.P.(C) 22982-91/2005 also deals with
Keshopur Sabzi Mandi. The writ was filed by the petitioners in that case
who were said to be conducting business of selling vegetables in Palam area
for several years. It was their contention that the area falls under Keshopur
Sabzi Mandi. It was also their contention that they were holding requisite
licenses and that without identifying an alternate site for the market the
petitioners therein were being threatened with dispossession. Taking into
account the fact that the counter-affidavit was bereft of any proper details,
directions were passed by the Court that till alternate site was developed,
such licensed traders at the existing sites where Keshopur Mandi is being
operated, would be permitted to continue. However, that order has been
passed prior to the Notification issued on 2.9.2014 which notification has
materially changed the ground situation. The narration of facts as stated in
the order show that the petitioners in that case were functioning within the
market area, the issues and facts which are subject matter of that petition
were materially different as compared to the present proceedings. The said
order would have no application to the facts of the present case.
LPA 867/2015 & 879/2015 Page 6 of 7
15. Coming to the order passed in W.P.(C)772/2013 and
W.P.(C)5825/2013 on 13.3.2014. The order does not give full details of
facts. However, a direction was passed by the Court to the Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi to convene a meeting to resolve the dispute between
the parties. In the meeting a representative of DDA, Deputy Commissioner,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation and proper representative of the Delhi
Agricultural Marketing Board was also be present.
16. The appellants have failed to give details of the outcome of meeting
convened subsequent to the aforesaid order and as to whether any of the
other license holders as situated akin to that of the appellants have been
provided any relief by the respondents. In the grounds of appeal, it is
admitted that so far there has been no development pursuant to the meetings.
17. After the judgment had been reserved, this Court had kept the matter
for clarification on the outcome of the meetings which were directed by the
judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 13.3.2014. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellants was not able to make any submissions in this
regard. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have denied
any such rehabilitation scheme having been offered to any of the license
holders, as claimed by the appellants.
18. In the light of the above, we see no grounds to interfere in the
impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.
(JAYANT NATH)
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE
April 26, 2016/n
LPA 867/2015 & 879/2015 Page 7 of 7