DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD vs. HAKUMAT RAI

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8267 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 11247 OF 2016) DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD …APPELLANT VERSUS HAKUMAT RAI ...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred against the th judgment and order dated 29 January, 2016 in LPA No.535 of 2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the Division Bench of the JUDGMENT 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. Page 1 2 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

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 (DDA). 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 representation in the year 1994 for some alternative site at JUDGMENT Keshopur Mandi , Tilak Nagar, Delhi which was closer to his residence as he was not successful in the draw of lots held in the year 1987. In the year 1999, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Secretary, APMC but he was not allotted a shop. In the year 2002, the petitioner again represented that as no shops were available in Okhla, he may be accommodated at new wholesale market. In 2003, the Agenda Item No.8 for allotment of shop to the petitioner was approved Page 2 3 th on 18 December, 2003 but he was not allotted a shop. In 2008, the petitioner represented for allotment of shop at Gazipur market and again in the year 2011, he sought allotment of shop at Keshopur,

High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.547 of 1993. He was given liberty th to file representation. He also relied upon the order dated 24 January, 2003 in another case in Writ Petition (Civil) No.790 of 2000. In substance, the case put forward by the petitioner was that he was running his business at Darya Ganj since long and as the said market had been de-notified, he was entitled to be allotted an alternative shop at Gazipur or any other newly developed market. 3. The writ petition was opposed by the appellant by submitting that ‘B’ Category license can be granted only to the persons owning a JUDGMENT shop in the market area/ yard of the APMC. Alternative shops in Gazipur market were being given only to those who were bona fide licensees of APMC, Shahdara. Thus, the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of shop in the said market. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was waiting for allotment of shop since the year 1985 and was entitled to be accommodated at Gazipur particularly when no other markets were Page 3 4 coming up in the near future. The observations of the learned Single Judge are :

JUDGMENT Page 4 5 justice. Accordingly, necessary directions are issued in terms of the relief sought for by the petitioner. 7.3 In view of the above, the respondent will allot a shop to the petitioner in the Gazipur Mandi, and thereafter, also issue a category ‘B’ License to the petitioner.” 4. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the above direction as follows : “11. We may also deal with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The contention is that as the respondent’s name did not figure in the draw of lots, he became ineligible. It was put to learned counsel for the appellant to show if there is any policy that an eligible person seeking an alternate place at Okhla Mandi would become ineligible in case he did not succeed in the draw of lots. Learned counsel has not been able to show any such policy on record. The contention is clearly without any merits. Regarding the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order would cause confusion inasmuch as the shops which are being constructed at Gazipur are only meant for those who have been working at Shahdra Mandi, the impugned order rightly states that this is a piquant situation which is a creation of the appellant’s own making.” JUDGMENT 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that allotment of shop in a notified market area is not a legal right. Accommodation in the notified area depended upon the number of nd shops available. Further, vide notification dated 2 September, 2014 it Page 5 6 was notified that no license will now be required for the marketing of fruits and vegetables in Delhi except in the notified market areas. Thus, the appellant could continue to carry on his business at Phool

business, subject to his having right to occupy the shop from the premises where the business was being carried on, the appellant was under no obligation to allot an alternative shop to rehabilitate him. The case of the writ petitioner was considered from time to time, but since the number of claimants was more than the shops available, he could not be allotted a shop. The High Court had directed allotment of shop to him merely on the ground that he was waiting from a long time. nd Moreover, in view of the notification dated 2 September, 2014, no license is required for the writ petitioner to continue at the present place of his business. The said notification is as follows : JUDGMENT “Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (I) and (4) of Section 4 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998, and in supersession of notifications Nos.F.50(3)/77/DAM(i) dated 14.01.77, F.6(II)/78-DAM/7371-92 dated 21.11.78, F.8/4/83-DAM/ MR (i) dated 01.12.92, F.8(2)/85-DAM/MR/Vol.II/420 dated 29.01.2001 and F.8/4/83-DAM/MR (ii) dated 01.12.92, in so far as they relate to Fruits and Vegetables mentioned in the schedule to the above Act, the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to declare that regulation of marketing of fruits and vegetable mentioned above shall cease beyond the markets/ market yard/ sub-yards of the respective marketing committees Page 6 7 namely APMC MNI Azadpur, APMC Keshopur and APMC Shahdara, with immediate effect, and henceforth market area of these committees with respect to fruits and vegetables shall have the following boundaries…” (emphasis added)

impugned order but submitted that there are available surplus shops at Gazipur market and the petitioner was willing to offer 10 per cent over and above the highest auction bid. He has filed a copy of the letter th dated 29 June, 2016 in response to an application under the RTI which is as follows : “1. There are a total No. of 354 ‘B’ Category license holders in Gazipur Mandi, out of which, 309 license holders have been allotted new shops. Out of the above 21 license holders are in waiting list for shops under construction. 2. As many as 9 blocks are constructed and ready in Gazipur Mandi. It has 288 ‘B’ category shops. In 1 block 32 shops of ‘B’ Category are raised. 3. In block 10 which is under construction, 21 shops of ‘B’ category have already been allotted. 4. All the shops under construction and also those which are already constructed are under the Jurisdiction of the Office of the Parishad. The remaining shops are also under the jurisdiction of the Office of Parishad.” JUDGMENT 8. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that 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 Page 7 8 allotment of shops, but he could not succeed. We have also noted the stand of the appellant that Gazipur Mandi shops are for the allotment of shops to persons who have been displaced from Shahadra, in which

the writ petitioner that he has been discriminated against or otherwise denied fairness in action. Thus, strictly speaking, 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. 9. In these circumstances, we dispose of this appeal by modifying the impugned order to the effect that the case of the respondent, along with all eligible persons, be considered, subject to the availability of a JUDGMENT shop, within six months, in accordance with law. ………………………………………………J. ( V. GOPALA GOWDA ) ………………………………………………J. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) NEW DELHI; AUGUST 24, 2016. Page 8 9 ITEM NO.1A-For JUDGMENT COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD Petitioner(s) VERSUS HAKUMAT RAI Respondent(s) Date : 24/08/2016 This petition was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today. For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv. Mr. Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Madhusmita Bora,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and His Lordship. JUDGMENT Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed Reportable Judgment. (VINOD KUMAR JHA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) AR­CUM­PS COURT MASTER (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file) Page 9