Darshan Lal & Ors. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
IN THE MATTERS OF:
+ W.P.(C) 1111/2021 and CM APPL. 3089/2021
DARSHAN LAL & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
With
+ W.P.(C) 11577/2021
SMT. MEENA KUMARI .....Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ORS. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11578/2021 and CM APPL. 35719/2021
SMT. NAHID ` .....Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
1
OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11585/2021
ARMAN & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11586/2021
RAHUL SAINI .....Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11587/2021
AMIR GOHAR @ AKRAM & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT
OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11588/2021 and CM APPL. 35747/2021
SANJAY LAUMAS .....Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
2
OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 12005/2021
MOHD. YUSUF .....Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 12031/2021
SMT. CHANDERWATI .....Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT
OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 12032/2021
RAJNI .....Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT
OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 12433/2021 and CM APPL. 39100/2021
MS. SOFIYA .....Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF
NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
3
+ W.P.(C) 14869/2021 and CM APPL. 46937/2021
JAHUR .....Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF
NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11980/2022 and CM APPL. 35960/2022
MOHD SAHID .....Petitioner
versus
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11982/2022 and CM APPL. 35771/2022
MOHD. SAHID .....Petitioner
versus
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE & ANR.
.....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 11995/2022 and CM APPL. 35795/2022
MOHD YUNUS PRAVEZ .....Petitioner
versus
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE & ANR.
.....Respondents
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
4
+ W.P.(C) 12015/2022 and CM APPL. 35928/2022
YUSUF AZAD .....Petitioner
versus
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE & ANR.
.....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 12166/2022
RAMESH KHERA .....Petitioner
versus
DELHI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,
SHAHDRA & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 12171/2022
SUSHIL MANOCHA .....Petitioner
versus
DELHI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
SHAHDRA & ANR. .....Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 12126/2022
DEEPAK KHERA .....Petitioner
versus
DELHI AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
& ANR. .....Respondents
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
5
+ W.P.(C) 12192/2022 and CM APPL. 36485/2022
MOHD YASHIN .....Petitioner
versus
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE & ANR.
.....Respondents
For petitioners: -
Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Mr. Karan Deep Singh, Mr. Archit Rajput and Ms. Nupur
Singh, Advs. in W.P.(C) 1111/2021.
Mr. Anup Kr. Das, Mr. Nairit Bansal, Ms. Prachi Sharma and Ms. Ishita
Singh, Advs. for Items W.P.(C) 11577/2021, W.P.(C) 11578/2021, W.P.(C)
11585/2021, W.P.(C) 11586/2021, W.P.(C) 11587/2021, W.P.(C)
11588/2021, W.P.(C) 12005/2021, W.P.(C) 12031/2021 & W.P.(C)
12032/2021, W.P.(C) 12433/2021 and W.P.(C) 14869/2021.
Mr. Anil Panwar with Mr. Tanishq Panwar, Mr. Nikhil Goel and Mr. Sahej
Sawhney, Advocates in W.P.(C) 11980/2022, W.P.(C) 11982/2022, W.P.(C)
11995/2022, W.P.(C) 12015/2022 and W.P.(C) 12192/2022.
Ms. Kunika, Advocate in W.P.(C) 12166/2022, W.P.(C) 12171/2022 and
W.P.(C) 12126/2022.
For respondents: -
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for GNCTD Services with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Reserved on: 26.05.2026
Pronounced on: 07.07.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
6
J U D G E M E N T
INDEX
I. FACTS OF THE CASE…………………………………………………..8
A. Petitions Arising Out Of The “37 Left Over Licensees” Controversy .... 12
B. Petitions Claiming Independent Allotment/Rehabilitation Rights At
Gazipur Market ............................................................................................ 13
C. Petitions Seeking Recognition Of Reconstitution/Change In Constitution,
Substitution Or Derivative Licensing Rights ............................................... 14
D. Petition Seeking Issuance Of Fresh „B‟ Category Licence .................... 15
II. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF PARTIES……………16
A. Petitoners ............................................................................................... 16
B. Respondents ........................................................................................... 21
III. ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………...26
A. Legitimate Expectation Of Allotment ................................................... 26
B. Applicability Of E-Auction Policy ......................................................... 31
C. Effect Of Observations In Hukumat Rai Judgment ............................... 33
D. Distinction From Sabzi Traders Case ................................................... 35
E. Reconstitution And Derivative Rights ................................................... 39
IV. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………….45
The present batch of writ petitions raises a common challenge to the
action of the respondent authorities in declining the claims of the
petitioners for allotment of shops/spaces at the Fruit and Vegetable
Market, Ghazipur, Delhi [“ Gazipur Market ”] and allied reliefs arising
out of renewal/recognition of „B‟ category licenses,
reconstitution/change in constitution claims and, in one matter, issuance
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
7
of a fresh license, by the impugned order dated 16.10.2020 passed by the
Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board [“ DAMB ”], whereby, the
claims/applications preferred by the petitioners came to be rejected.
2. The petitioners across the present batch claim to be
traders/commission agents associated with the erstwhile Fruit and
Vegetable Market, Shahdara [“ Shahdara Market ”] and assert that they
were either carrying on business therein or were subsequently granted
„B‟ category licenses under the provisions of the Delhi Agricultural
Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998 [“ DAPM Act ”] and the
Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) General Rules, 2000
[“ General Rules, 2000 ”]. The grievance projected in the present batch
substantially pertains to denial of allotment of shops/spaces at Gazipur
Market despite grant and continued renewal of such licenses over a
prolonged period of time.
3. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in
the present batch of matters, the same were heard together and are being
disposed of by way of the present common judgment. However, before
adverting to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it
becomes necessary to briefly notice the factual background giving rise to
the present batch as well as the distinct nature of claims raised in the
individual petitions.
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
4. The controversy involved in the present batch traces its genesis to
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
the shifting of the erstwhile Shahdara Market consequent upon
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
8
acquisition of land for the Delhi Metro Rail Project in 1997 and the
subsequent development of the Ghazipur Market by the respondent
authorities. The petitioners across the present batch claim association
with the erstwhile Shahdara Market either as traders, commission agents,
licence holders or persons claiming through such entities or assert that
they were carrying on trade/business activities in relation to the said
market prior to or after the shifting process.
5. The facts of the present petitions would show that consequent upon
the shifting of the Shahdara Market, disputes arose pertaining to
rehabilitation, accommodation and licensing of traders/entities at
Gazipur Market, leading to multiple rounds of proceedings before this
Court as well as before the respondent authorities. Reference in this
regard may be made, inter alia , to proceedings in East Delhi Fruits &
Vegetables ThokVikreta Association & Ors. v. Lt. Governor &
1
Ors . , Jamunapar Fruit & Veg. Commission Agents Welfare
2
Association v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors . , and various proceedings
arising therefrom. The petitioners contend that in the aforesaid
proceedings, the respondent authorities had undertaken to consider and
accommodate claims pertaining to traders/licensees associated with the
erstwhile Shahdara Market.
6. The record further reflects that the respondent authorities undertook
various deliberations concerning allotment of shops/spaces and
regulation of licensing at Gazipur Market. Resolution dated 24.05.2000
1
W.P.(C) 7627/2000; Dated 14.02.2002
2
W.P.(C) 3423/2001; Dated 02.02.2009
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
9
came to be passed imposing restrictions upon grant of fresh licenses in
markets where new markets were being developed. Subsequently, a Sub-
Committee constituted by the respondent authorities framed certain
eligibility conditions concerning allotment of shops/spaces at Gazipur
Market. The petitioners place reliance upon deliberations, resolutions
and decisions taken by the respondent authorities from time to time to
contend that traders/licensees associated with Shahdara Market
continued to remain under consideration for accommodation/allotment at
Gazipur Market.
7. The material placed on record further shows that several petitioners
claim to have been granted and/or continued under „B‟ category licences
issued under the provisions of the DAPM Act and the General Rules,
2000, whereas certain petitioners additionally claim rights arising out of
reconstitution/change in constitution, substitution, inheritance and allied
proceedings concerning such licenses. The petitioners contend that
licenses in question continued to be renewed from time to time and
Form-K renewal receipts/license fee receipts were issued by the
respondent authorities over several years.
8. The petitioners further contend that despite prolonged consideration
of their claims and continued recognition allegedly accorded by the
respondent authorities, no shops/spaces came to be allotted to them at
Gazipur Market. Various representations consequently came to be
submitted by the petitioners seeking allotment, renewal, recognition and
allied reliefs and in certain cases proceedings again came to be instituted
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
10
before this Court seeking directions to the respondent authorities to
consider such claims in accordance with law.
9. The record further reflects that Notification dated 02.09.2014 came
to be issued in relation to deregulation of fruits and vegetables beyond
notified market yards/sub-yards. Thereafter, Resolution No. 115/2015
came to be passed by the respondent authorities providing for allotment
of vacant shops/spaces through the process of e-auction. According to
the respondents, the aforesaid developments materially altered the
governing framework concerning allotment of shops/spaces at Gazipur
Market and consequently, no preferential or vested right could thereafter
be claimed merely on the basis of holding or renewal of „B‟ category
licenses.
10. The petitioners, however, contend that the e-auction mechanism
could not have been applied in a manner defeating pending claims
allegedly arising out of the earlier rehabilitation/allotment process
pertaining to traders/licensees associated with the erstwhile Shahdara
Market. Certain petitioners additionally rely upon prior resolutions,
minutes of meetings and statements allegedly made by the respondent
authorities in earlier judicial proceedings in support of their claims.
11. The claims/applications of the petitioners ultimately came to be
rejected vide impugned order dated 16.10.2020 passed by DAMB,
primarily on the ground that the petitioners were not fulfilling the
prescribed eligibility criteria and that no vested or enforceable right to
allotment accrued merely by virtue of grant/renewal of „B‟ category
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
11
licenses. The respondents additionally held that allotment of
shops/spaces stood governed by the prevailing statutory framework and
the e-auction policy adopted by the respondent authorities. The aforesaid
order along with consequential actions/policies of the respondent
authorities forms the principal subject matter of challenge in the present
batch of writ petitions .
12. At this stage, it becomes necessary to notice that though the present
batch of writ petitions arises from a common factual background and
substantially assails the impugned order dated 16.10.2020, the petitions
themselves proceed on distinct factual foundations, separate entitlement
structures and differing legal assertions. A conjoint reading of the writ
petitions, annexures, concise notes, grounds and prayers would show that
the matters are liable to be grouped in the following manner:
A. PETITIONS ARISING OUT OF THE “37 LEFT OVER
LICENSEES” CONTROVERSY
13. W.P.(C) 1111/2021, W.P.(C) 11980/2022, W.P.(C) 11982/2022,
W.P.(C) 11995/2022, W.P.(C) 12015/2022 and W.P.(C) 12192/2022
arise substantially out of the controversy concerning the “37 Left Over
Licensees” associated with the erstwhile Shahdara Market. The
petitioners in the aforesaid matters principally contend that though they
formed part of the category of traders/licensees whose claims continued
to remain under consideration after shifting of the Shahdara Market, they
were illegally denied allotment despite subsequent renewal/continuation
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
12
of „B‟ category licences and prolonged consideration of their claims by
the respondent authorities.
14. The petitioners in the aforesaid matters principally rely upon
proceedings including W.P.(C) 7627/2000, W.P.(C) 3423/2001,
observations made in DAMC v. Hukumat Rai and subsequent
proceedings including W.P.(C) 2009/2017 and connected matters to
contend that displaced traders/licensees from Shahdara Market were
always intended to be accommodated at Gazipur Market. The petitioners
additionally contend that grant and continued renewal of „B‟ category
licenses over several years created a legitimate expectation in their
favour and consequently, the respondent authorities cannot now deny
allotment by placing reliance upon the subsequent e-auction framework
and policy changes.The challenge in these matters substantially revolves
around the legality of denying allotment despite prolonged
renewal/recognition of licences and the subsequent treatment accorded to
the leftover licensees by the respondent authorities.
B. PETITIONS CLAIMING INDEPENDENT ALLOTMENT/
REHABILITATION RIGHTS AT GAZIPUR MARKET
15. W.P.(C) 11588/2021, W.P.(C) 14869/2021 and W.P.(C) 12166/2022
principally seek allotment/recognition at Gazipur Market on the basis of
independent claims arising out of alleged entitlement as traders/licensees
associated with the erstwhile Shahdara Market. Though the petitioners in
these matters also rely upon the larger rehabilitation framework
concerning shifting of Shahdara Market and non-allotment at Gazipur
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
13
Market, the petitions do not fundamentally proceed on the specific “37
Left Over Licensees” controversy in the manner reflected in Category-A
matters.
16. The petitioners in the aforesaid category principally contend that the
respondent authorities continued to recognize their status through
renewal/continuation of licences, acceptance of fees and prolonged
consideration of representations and consequently could not
subsequently deny allotment by placing reliance upon the e-auction
mechanism and later policy developments.
C. PETITIONS SEEKING RECOGNITION OF RECONSTITUTION/
CHANGE IN CONSTITUTION, SUBSTITUTION OR DERIVATIVE
LICENSING RIGHTS
17. W.P.(C) 11577/2021, W.P.(C) 11578/2021, W.P.(C) 11585/2021,
W.P.(C) 11586/2021, W.P.(C) 11587/2021, W.P.(C) 12005/2021,
W.P.(C) 12031/2021, W.P.(C) 12032/2021, W.P.(C) 12171/2022 and
W.P.(C) 12433/2021 pertain to matters where the petitioners seek
recognition of claims arising out of reconstitution/change in constitution
of firms, substitution of legal heirs, inheritance and continuation of rights
allegedly flowing from existing licences/entities.
18. The petitioners in the aforesaid category contend that the original
licences/entitlements themselves stood acknowledged by the respondent
authorities and thereafter applications seeking reconstitution/change in
constitution/substitution had been submitted along with requisite charges
and supporting documents. It is their case that the respondent authorities
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
14
themselves entertained such applications over a prolonged period of time
and thereby acknowledged continuity of the petitioners‟ rights and
status. Reliance in this regard has principally been placed upon Section
71 of the DAPM Act read with Rule 24 of the General Rules, 2000 to
contend that once requisite formalities stood completed, and the
respondent authorities were under an obligation to recognize the changes
sought by the petitioners and consequently grant allotment in their
favour.
19. The petitioners in the aforesaid matters additionally contend that
once the respondent authorities themselves entertained and processed
applications pertaining to reconstitution/substitution over several years,
they could not thereafter deny consequential allotment by treating the
petitioners as disentitled or non-recognized entities. Certain petitioners
additionally rely upon prior orders passed by this Court directing the
respondent authorities to consider claims pertaining to allotment as well
as reconstitution/change in constitution in accordance with law.
D. PETITION SEEKING ISSUANCE OF FRESH „B‟ CATEGORY
LICENCE
20. W.P.(C) 12126/2022 stands on a distinct footing inasmuch as the
petitioner therein principally seeks issuance of a fresh „B‟ category
licence itself while additionally assailing the policy decision imposing
restrictions upon grant of fresh licences. The challenge in the said
petition is directed primarily against the continuing operation of the
restrictive licensing policy and the refusal of the respondent authorities
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
15
to grant a fresh licence despite repeated applications and representations
submitted by the petitioner.
II. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF PARTIES
A. PETITONERS
21. Learned counsel Mr. Sanjeev Sahay submitted that the impugned
order dated 16.10.2020 proceeds on an erroneous understanding of the
historical background concerning shifting of the erstwhile Shahdara
Market to Gazipur Market and completely ignores the prolonged course
of conduct adopted by the respondent authorities while dealing with the
claims of displaced traders/licensees associated with the erstwhile
Shahdara Market.
22. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners formed part of the
category of “37 Left Over Licensees” whose claims allegedly remained
pending despite subsequent renewal/continuation of licences and
repeated consideration by the respondent authorities. It was contended
that though the respondent authorities themselves undertook renewal of
licences pertaining to the leftover licensees and continued to recognize
them through issuance of Form-K receipts/licence renewals, the
petitioners were ultimately denied allotment by relying upon subsequent
scrutiny exercises and policy changes.
23. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent authorities
themselves had repeatedly acknowledged before judicial forums as well
as in administrative deliberations/resolutions that traders/licensees
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
16
associated with the erstwhile Shahdara Market were liable to be
considered for accommodation and allotment at Gazipur Market.
Reliance in this regard was placed upon proceedings in East Delhi
Fruits & Vegetables ThokVikreta Association & Ors. v. Lt. Governor
& Ors .,(supra), Jamunapar Fruit & Veg. Commission Agents Welfare
Association v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ,(supra) observations made
3
in DAMC v. Hukumat Rai and subsequent proceedings including Yusuf
4
Azad & Ors. v. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee &Anr. ,
and connected matters.
24. It was contended that the respondent authorities themselves had
accepted licence fee/market fee and continued to renew the licences of
the petitioners over prolonged periods and consequently could not treat
the petitioners as non-functional, fictitious or disentitled entities. It was
further contended that the subsequent scrutiny undertaken by the
respondent authorities concerning the leftover licensees was arbitrary
and selective inasmuch as irregularities were allegedly found only in
certain cases whereas similarly situated persons had already been granted
allotment/recognition.
25. Mr. Anup Kumar Das learned counsel submitted that the respondent
authorities had illegally failed to recognize claims arising out of
reconstitution/change in constitution, substitution of legal heirs,
inheritance and continuation of licensing rights despite entertaining such
applications over prolonged periods. It was contended that the original
3
Civil Appeal No. 8267/2016; Dated 26.11.2021
4
W.P.(C) 2009/2017; Dated 05.09.2017
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
17
licences/entities themselves stood acknowledged by the respondent
authorities and thereafter applications seeking reconstitution/change in
constitution/substitution had been submitted along with requisite
documents, charges and supporting material in accordance with the
provisions of the DAPM Act and the General Rules, 2000.
26. Learned counsel further submitted that several petitioners
represented by him were independently entitled to consideration for
allotment/recognition at Gazipur Market in view of their continued
association with the erstwhile Shahdara Market and prolonged
recognition accorded by the respondent authorities under the licensing
framework. It was contended that the respondent authorities continued to
renew/recognize the licences of the petitioners and accepted licence
fee/market fee over several years and consequently could not
subsequently defeat their claims by placing reliance upon the e-auction
mechanism and later policy developments.
27. Reliance in this regard was principally placed upon Section 71 of
the DAPM Act read with Rule 24 of the General Rules, 2000 to contend
that once requisite formalities stood complied with, the respondent
authorities were under an obligation to recognize the changes sought by
the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that once the respondent
authorities themselves entertained and processed applications pertaining
to reconstitution/substitution over several years and continued to
renew/recognize the concerned licences/entities, the respondents could
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
18
not subsequently deny consequential allotment or continuation benefits
by treating the petitioners as disentitled or non-recognized entities.
28. Learned counsel additionally submitted that the e-auction
framework subsequently introduced by the respondent authorities was
intended only for residual/surplus shops and could not have been utilized
in a manner defeating pending claims of traders/licensees whose cases
for allotment allegedly remained under consideration over several years.
It was contended that the respondent authorities were bound by the
earlier rehabilitation framework and representations made in prior
proceedings before this Court.
29. Mr. Anil Panwar learned counsel submitted that the impugned order
dated 16.10.2020 had been passed in a mechanical manner without
genuinely appreciating the material placed on record by the petitioners.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners represented by him also
formed part of the category of leftover licensees whose licences had
continuously been renewed by the respondent authorities and in whose
favour Form-K receipts/licence renewals had repeatedly been issued
over prolonged periods.
30. It was contended that once the respondent authorities themselves
continued to recognize the petitioners as valid licensees/traders
associated with Gazipur Market over several years, the respondents
could not subsequently deny allotment by treating the petitioners as
fictitious, non-functional or disentitled entities. Learned counsel further
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
19
submitted that the scrutiny subsequently undertaken by the respondent
authorities was arbitrary, selective and unsupported by cogent material.
31. Learned counsel additionally submitted that several petitioners
represented by him could not have been non-suited on the ground of
alleged non-functioning when admittedly no permanent shops/spaces had
ever been allotted to them at Gazipur Market. It was contended that the
subsequent e-auction mechanism and policy developments could not be
utilized to defeat pending claims of displaced/left over traders/licensees
whose cases allegedly remained under consideration over several years.
32. Ms. Kunika learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners
submitted that the respondent authorities had adopted an arbitrary and
inconsistent approach while dealing with claims pertaining to
allotment/licensing at Gazipur Market. Learned counsel submitted that
despite repeated applications, representations and requests submitted by
the petitioners seeking renewal/recognition/licensing, the respondent
authorities failed to take a consistent decision in accordance with the
governing statutory framework.
33. Insofar as the claims relating to substitution/legal heirship are
concerned, learned counsel submitted that once the respondent
authorities themselves entertained applications and accepted licence
renewals/fees over prolonged periods, they could not subsequently deny
consequential benefits arising therefrom. It was contended that the
original licences/entities themselves continued to remain acknowledged
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
20
by the authorities and consequently denial of derivative rights was
arbitrary and unsustainable.
34. Insofar as the challenge relating to grant of fresh licence is
concerned, learned counsel submitted that the policy decision dated
24.05.2000 imposing restrictions upon grant of fresh „B‟ category
licences was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It was contended that despite
repeated applications and requests submitted by the petitioner seeking
issuance of licence and permission to deposit market fee, the respondent
authorities continued to reject the claim solely on the basis of the
restrictive licensing policy.
35. Learned counsel additionally submitted that fresh licences had in
fact been granted by the respondent authorities in several cases even
subsequent to the restrictive policy and consequently refusal to consider
the petitioner‟s application amounted to hostile discrimination and
arbitrary exercise of power. Reliance in this regard was also placed upon
material obtained under the Right to Information Act to contend that the
respondent authorities themselves had not uniformly adhered to the
restrictive licensing policy sought to be relied upon against the
petitioner.
B. RESPONDENTS
36. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat and Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh learned counsel
submitted that none of the petitioners possessed any vested, accrued or
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
enforceable right to claim allotment of shops/spaces at Gazipur Market
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
21
merely on the basis of holding or renewal of „B‟ category licences. It
was contended that grant or renewal of licences under the DAPM Act
and the General Rules, 2000 merely entitled the licence holder to carry
on notified trading activities in accordance with law and did not confer
any indefeasible right of allotment.
37. Learned counsel submitted that the entire case set up by the
petitioners proceeds on an erroneous assumption that persons allegedly
associated with the erstwhile Shahdara Market were automatically
entitled to allotment at Gazipur Market. According to the respondents,
no such unconditional or blanket right was ever created either under the
statutory framework or under any policy decision/resolution relied upon
by the petitioners. It was contended that allotment at Gazipur Market
always remained subject to fulfilment of prescribed eligibility conditions
and continued compliance with the governing statutory and policy
framework.
38. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities had constituted
Committees/Sub-Committees from time to time for examining claims
relating to allotment at Gazipur Market and specific eligibility conditions
were framed in this regard. It was contended that several petitioners
failed to satisfy the prescribed criteria including conditions pertaining to
continuous functioning/business activity, continuity and validity of
licences and compliance with applicable requirements under the
governing framework. According to the respondents, the petitioners were
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
22
never found eligible by the competent authorities for allotment and
consequently no enforceable right ever crystallized in their favour.
39. Learned counsel submitted that serious doubts had arisen with
respect to genuineness and continuity of business activities claimed by
several petitioners and consequently scrutiny/investigation of such
claims became necessary. Particular emphasis was placed upon the
controversy relating to the leftover licensees wherein, according to the
respondents, various licence holders were found to be non-functional,
not carrying on genuine mandi activities or otherwise lacking material
demonstrating bona fide operation from the relevant market area. It was
contended that mere renewal of licences or issuance of Form-K receipts
could not override the requirement of establishing actual eligibility and
genuine functioning for purposes of allotment.
40. It was further contended that repeated renewal of licences or
acceptance of licence fee/market fee did not create any estoppel against
the respondent authorities nor confer any preferential or vested right to
claim allotment of shops/spaces. Learned counsel submitted that
licensing and allotment operated in distinct fields and consequently
renewal of licence by itself could not entitle any petitioner to claim
allotment as a matter of right.
41. Learned counsel additionally submitted that Notification dated
02.09.2014 relating to deregulation of fruits and vegetables and
Resolution No. 115/2015 introducing allotment through e-auction
fundamentally altered the governing framework concerning allotment of
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
23
shops/spaces at Gazipur Market. According to the respondents, after
deregulation and adoption of the e-auction mechanism, allotment of
vacant shops/spaces could only be undertaken in accordance with the
prevailing policy framework and consequently no petitioner could claim
preferential allotment dehors the said process.
42. It was contended that the petitioners could not rely upon earlier
deliberations, minutes, representations or alleged assurances in order to
defeat subsequent policy decisions and statutory developments
governing allotment at Gazipur Market. Learned counsel submitted that
once the governing framework itself stood materially altered, no pending
or inchoate claim allegedly arising out of the earlier rehabilitation
process could survive contrary to the subsequently adopted regime.
43. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent authorities
had already defended the aforesaid position in earlier rounds of litigation
including proceedings arising from W.P.(C) 7627/2000, W.P.(C)
3423/2001, W.P.(C) 2009/2017 and connected matters as well as in
proceedings before the Division Bench. Reliance was placed upon the
judgment rendered in the Letters Patent Appeal proceedings to contend
that no indefeasible or vested right of allotment accrued merely on
account of holding or renewal of licence and that allotment remained
subject to the governing statutory/policy framework and satisfaction of
prescribed eligibility conditions.
44. In relation to the petitions seeking recognition of
reconstitution/change in constitution, substitution and continuation of
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
24
licensing rights, learned counsel submitted that no independent or
automatic right accrued merely because applications seeking such
changes had been submitted or entertained by the authorities. It was
contended that recognition of reconstitution/substitution itself remained
subject to scrutiny and fulfilment of statutory requirements under the
DAPM Act and the General Rules, 2000.
45. Learned counsel further submitted that a person claiming through
reconstitution, inheritance, substitution or change in constitution could
not derive any better right than that possessed by the original licence
holder himself. According to the respondents, where the original
licenceholder himself possessed no vested or enforceable right of
allotment, no consequential or derivative right could accrue in favour of
successors, legal heirs or reconstituted entities.
46. The respondents additionally contended that several petitions
suffered from delay, laches and acquiescence inasmuch as the petitioners
approached this Court after prolonged periods despite being fully aware
of the alleged denial/non-consideration of their claims. According to the
respondents, stale claims could not be permitted to be revived merely on
the basis of repeated representations or subsequent correspondence
exchanged with the authorities.
47. Insofar as the challenge relating to grant of fresh licence is
concerned, learned counsel submitted that the policy decision dated
24.05.2000 imposing restrictions on grant of fresh licences constituted a
conscious administrative policy decision taken in public interest keeping
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
25
in view regulation of market operations, infrastructure constraints and
market requirements. It was contended that no person could claim
issuance of a fresh licence as a matter of vested right and the petitioner
in W.P.(C) 12126/2022 failed to establish any enforceable legal
entitlement contrary to the prevailing policy framework.
48. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the impugned order dated
16.10.2020 had been passed pursuant to directions issued by this Court
in earlier proceedings and the respondent authorities had duly considered
the claims, documents and materials placed on record before passing the
said order. According to the respondents, the impugned order constitutes
a detailed and reasoned determination rendered upon consideration of the
prevailing statutory framework, policy decisions and factual scrutiny
undertaken by the competent authorities and consequently warrants no
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
49. I have heard the parties and perused the record, in light of the rival
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.
III. ANALYSIS
A. LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF ALLOTMENT
50. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that
since they were holding valid „B‟ category licences and were associated
with the erstwhile Shahdara Market, they possessed a legitimate
expectation of allotment of shops/spaces at Gazipur Market. According
to the petitioners, the very purpose underlying development of Gazipur
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Market was rehabilitation and accommodation of traders/licensees
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
26
operating from Shahdara Market and consequently denial of allotment
despite continued renewal/recognition of licences is arbitrary and
unsustainable.
51. Per contra , the respondents contend that grant or renewal of licence
under the DAPM Act and the General Rules, 2000 never conferred any
vested or enforceable right of allotment and that allotment at Gazipur
Market always remained subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility
conditions and the prevailing policy framework.
52. This Court finds considerable merit in the aforesaid submission
advanced on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, it becomes
necessary to observe that neither the statutory framework governing the
field nor the various proceedings relied upon by the petitioners create
any unconditional or indefeasible right of allotment merely on account of
holding or renewal of a licence.
53. At this stage, reference may first be made to the observations
rendered by this Court in Jamunapar Fruit & Veg. Comsis v. Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra). The said writ petition arose out of
allegations of large-scale irregularities in the grant of licences and
allotment of spaces in the newly established Gazipur Mandi during the
process of shifting from Shahdara Mandi. While noticing the stand of the
respondents regarding such irregularities, this Court directed the APMC
to examine each licence issued and each allotment made during the
relevant period, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties, to determine whether the same could be sustained in
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
27
accordance with law. Reference may first be made to the observations
rendered by this court in Jamunapar Fruit & Veg. Cosmis (supra):-
5. It is evident from the above stand of the respondent that even
according to it serious irregularities took place which led to
criminal action against the then Secretary of Market Committee.
Those criminal proceedings are of course pending before the
appropriate authority, but the accused appears to be enlarged on
bail. However, having regard to the stand taken by the APMC and
the Government of NCT of Delhi, this Court is of the opinion that the
remedial action, is to be taken in accordance with law. This would
necessarily extend to consideration of the licences granted between
21.05.1999 and 28.06.2000 (when the APMC issued an order
banning issuance of fresh licences) and also reviewing the
correctness and bona fides of allotment of spaces made in the market
Committee. Since the beneficiaries i.e. licencees or allottees are not
parties to these proceedings, this Court is not passing any adverse
orders. However, respondents, in view of the decision indicated by
them, should take speedy steps to ensure that those who were
granted licenses or space illegally or irregularly are put to notice,
and after complying with fair procedure necessary action either by
cancellation or recall of the orders, taken as early as possible.
6. In view of the above, the respondents APMC is hereby directed to
examine each license issued and each allotment made during the
relevant period and determine which of them can be sustained. The
concerned parties shall be granted liberty of hearing in accordance
with law against any proposed action that may be taken against
them. However, the respondents shall follow the procedure as
mandated in law. The entire process shall be completed as early as
possible; since the market was shifted almost a decade ago, the
process shall be completed preferably within a period of six months
from today.
[Emphasis Supplied]
54. A plain reading of the aforesaid observations would show that the
this court never recognized any automatic or unconditional entitlement
of allotment in favour of all licensees. The directions issued were
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
28
confined to scrutiny and examination of licences/allotments and
determination of their sustainability in accordance with law.
55. Similarly, reliance placed by the petitioners upon the order dated
05.09.2019 passed in Yusuf Azad & Ors., (supra) also does not carry the
case of the petitioners any further. The aforesaid order merely directed
consideration of the applications submitted by the petitioners and did not
create any indefeasible or automatic right of allotment in their favour.
The determination regarding allotment was expressly left to be
considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. The
relevant observations contained therein are reproduced below:-
9. The above sequence of events show the complete arbitrary manner
in which the respondents have acted against the petitioners. The
petitioners had to repeatedly file petitions before this Court
eventually leading to the grant of licenses in their favour. However,
in spite of grant of these licenses, the petitioners were not allotted
the space. By the Impugned Communications, without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, a decision was taken to
refuse the renewal of the licenses for the year 2016-17. As noted
hereinabove, the same is claimed to have been done on the basis of
some investigation pending against the licensees including the
petitioners of which no details are forthcoming.
10. In view of the above, the Impugned Communications dated
16.02.2017 and 01.02.2017 are set aside. The respondents are
directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for renewal of
their licenses in accordance with law. The respondents shall further
consider the applications of the petitioners for grant of space in the
Gazipur Sabzi Mandi. I may only note that in regard to the allotment
of the spaces, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
Minutes of Meeting dated 25.08.2014 of the Agricultural Marketing
Committee wherein, inter alia, it was decided to make temporary
arrangements for the petitioners to carry out their business. The said
decision shall also be kept in mind by the respondents while taking
decision on the applications of the petitioners for the allotment of
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
29
spaces. Decision on the applications of the petitioners shall be taken
within a period of eight weeks from the communication of this order.
56. The material placed on record further demonstrates that allotment at
Gazipur Market was always intended to be governed by prescribed
eligibility conditions framed by the competent authorities. In this regard,
the Sub-Committee Resolution dated 07.07.2009 assumes significance.
The said Resolution specifically contemplated that only those traders
who fulfilled the prescribed conditions, namely: (i) temporary shifting
from Shahdara to Gazipur in the year 2000; (ii) continuous functioning
for the preceding five years and allotment of temporary space; and (iii)
absence of any break in renewal of licence during the relevant period,
would be considered for allotment.
57. The aforesaid conditions themselves demonstrate that allotment was
never envisaged as an automatic consequence flowing merely from
existence or renewal of a licence. Rather, the respondent authorities
consistently maintained a distinction between grant/renewal of licence
on the one hand and eligibility for allotment on the other. Consequently,
mere continuation or renewal of licence by itself could not create any
vested or enforceable right of allotment in favour of the petitioners.
58. This Court is therefore unable to accept the contention that holding
of a valid licence or continued recognition under the licensing
framework by itself created any indefeasible or legitimate expectation of
allotment enforceable in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
30
B. APPLICABILITY OF E-AUCTION POLICY
59. The next contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the
e-auction policy subsequently introduced by the respondent authorities
was intended only for residual/surplus shops and could not have been
applied to shops/spaces allegedly liable to be allotted to existing
licensees/traders associated with the erstwhile Shahdara Market.
60. Per contra , the respondents contend that after introduction of the e-
auction regime, all vacant shops/spaces at Gazipur Market became liable
to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy
framework and no preferential or vested right survived in favour of any
existing licensee.
61. In this regard, it becomes relevant to note that the APMC Board
vide Resolution No. 115/2015 resolved that all vacant shops at Gazipur
Market would be allotted through the process of e-auction and the
reserve price for such allotment was also approved accordingly.
62. The aforesaid policy decision itself became subject matter of
challenge before this Court in Sabzi Traders Wholesellers Association
5
Ghazipur Sabji Mandi Delhi v. APMC & Ors . . The challenge raised
therein came to be rejected by the co-ordinate bench and the said view
was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench in Agricultural
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
5
W.P.(C) 8690/2020; Dated 05.11.2020
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
31
Produce Marketing Committee v. Sabzi Traders Wholesellers
6
Association Ghazipur Sabji Mandi Delhi & Ors.
63. The aforesaid decisions clearly recognize the authority of the
respondent authorities to regulate allotment of shops/spaces at Gazipur
Market in accordance with the prevailing policy framework including
through the process of e-auction. The challenge to the e-auction
mechanism having already been negatived, it is not open for the
petitioners to contend that they possess any preferential or automatic
right of allotment dehors the said policy framework.
64. This Court also finds merit in the submission advanced on behalf of
the respondents that mere holding of an existing statutory licence did not
confer any preferential right of allotment in favour of the petitioners. The
licensing framework under the DAPM Act and the allotment of
shops/spaces at Gazipur Market operate in distinct domains and one
cannot automatically flow from the other.
65. The petitioners continue to remain entitled to participate in the e-
auction process in accordance with the governing framework. Merely
because the rates under the e-auction mechanism may be higher than the
earlier allotment price cannot constitute a ground to claim allotment at
subsidized or concessional rates dehors the prevailing policy regime.
66. It also cannot be overlooked that after deregulation of fruits and
vegetables, the petitioners are not confined to carrying on trade only
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
6
LPA 335/2020; Dated 09.11.2020
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
32
within the notified market area and are otherwise free to conduct their
business activities in accordance with law outside the designated market
yards as well.
67. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the contention
that the e-auction policy was confined only to residual/surplus shops or
that the petitioners possessed any superior or preferential claim to
allotment outside the framework of the e-auction policy adopted by the
respondent authorities.
C. EFFECT OF OBSERVATIONS IN HUKUMAT RAI
JUDGMENT
68. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon the stand taken by the
respondent authorities before the Supreme Court in DAMC v. Hukumat
Rai & Ors ., (supra) to contend that shops at Gazipur Market were
intended exclusively for traders/licensees displaced from the erstwhile
Shahdara Market and consequently the respondents cannot now deny
allotment to the petitioners.
69. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon
the observations recorded by the Supreme Court in Hukumat Rai
(supra):-
“3. The writ petition was opposed by the appellants by submitting
that „B‟ category license can be granted 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 coming up in the near future.”
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
33
70. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the
aforesaid observations constitute an acknowledgment on the part of the
respondent authorities that shops at Gazipur Market were liable to be
allotted only to bona fide licensees associated with Shahdara Market and
consequently the petitioners, being holders of „B‟ category licences, are
entitled to allotment.
71. This Court, however, finds it unable to accept the aforesaid
submission in the manner sought to be canvassed by the petitioners. The
observations recorded in Hukumat Rai (supra) cannot be read divorced
from the context in which they came to be made. The issue before the
Supreme Court, therein, pertained to the entitlement of the concerned
claimant to seek allotment at Gazipur despite not falling within the
category of bona fide licensees associated with Shahdara Market.
72. The aforesaid observations, therefore, merely recognize the stand of
the respondent authorities that allotment at Gazipur Market was intended
for bona fide licensees/traders associated with Shahdara Market.
However, the said observations cannot be construed to mean that every
holder of a licence or every person claiming association with Shahdara
Market automatically acquired an indefeasible or vested right of
allotment.
73. As noticed hereinabove, the material placed on record itself
demonstrates that the respondent authorities had framed specific
eligibility conditions governing allotment at Gazipur Market. The Sub-
Committee decision dated 07.07.2009 specifically contemplated that
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
34
only such traders/licensees who fulfilled the prescribed conditions,
including temporary shifting to Gazipur, continuous functioning,
uninterrupted renewal of licence and allotment of temporary space,
would be considered eligible for allotment.
74. The expression “bona fide licensees” appearing in Hukumat Rai
(supra), therefore, necessarily has to be understood in the backdrop of
the governing statutory and policy framework and not in isolation. Mere
possession or renewal of a licence by itself could not result in automatic
conferment of allotment rights dehors the eligibility conditions framed
by the competent authorities.
75. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the
observations made in Hukumat Rai (supra) do not advance the case of
the petitioners to the extent sought to be urged and cannot be construed
as creating any unconditional or enforceable right of allotment in favour
of every holder of a „B‟ category licence.
D. DISTINCTION FROM SABZI TRADERS CASE
76. The petitioners have sought to distinguish the present batch of
matters from the decision rendered in Sabzi Traders Wholesellers
Association Ghazipur Sabji Mandi Case v. APMC (supra), and the
judgment of the Division Bench in APMC v . Sabzi Traders Wholesellers
Association Ghazipur Sabji Mandi Case (supra) by contending that the
petitioners therein pertained to Category-„A‟ licensees/Mashakhores
whereas the petitioners in the present batch are holders of Category-„B‟
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
licences.
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
35
77. At this stage, the relevant observations rendered by the Division
Bench may be noticed:-
“16. The issue is as to whether the appellants would be entitled to a
licence to carry out business inside the Gazipur Subzi Mandi, only
on the plea that they were carrying on business of sale of fruits and
vegetables in the Shahdara Subzi Mandi.
17. Mr. Panwar, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has
not been able to show any such rule which mandates grant of a
licence to every person carrying on business in the Shahdara Subzi
Mandi or outside the Mandi within the Gazipur Subzi Mandi. When
Shahdara Subzi Mandi was shifted to Gazipur, the appellants could
not have claimed entitlement to a licence in Gazipur Mandi as a
matter of right. It therefore cannot be said that just because they
were sitting in Shahdara Subzi Mandi, upon the Mandi being shifted
to the Gazipur Subzi Mandi, the appellants should be granted
Acategory licences on their asking. The appellants cannot base their
right to seek a licence by invoking the doctrine of legitimate
expectation when the procedure to grant a licence is governed by the
Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
*
22. In the case in hand, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot
be invoked by the appellants in the light of the statutory rules which
regulate grant/renewal/suspension or cancellation of licence. It is
well known that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be
invoked contrary to a statute or a policy. The appellants have not
been able to show that the respondents had at any time, promised
them that they would be issued a licence to conduct business inside
the Gazipur Subzi Mandi.
23. The respondent No.2/Board had taken a decision vide Resolution
No. 34/2000 dated 24.05.2000 that no fresh licence shall be granted
by Market Committees where new markets are being developed and
any individual who wanted to carry out trade of fruits and
vegetables as wholeseller or commission agent can do so without
any restrictions anywhere in Delhi, outside the notified market yard.
A perusal of the decision rejecting the recommendation of the
Market Committee shows that the respondent No.2/Board had vide a
Resolution No. 115/2015 had resolved that all the vacant shops will
be allotted through e-auction. The Board observed that in spite of
rejection of the representation of the appellants, the Market
Committee, Shahdara had passed resolutions dated 08.12.2018,
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
36
07.02.2019 and 03.01.2020 with the recommendation to consider
issuance of licences and allotment of shops. The respondent
No.2/Board therefore came to the conclusion that the resolutions
being contrary to the decisions taken by it, cannot be accepted. We
do not find any infirmity in the order dated 16.10.2020, setting aside
the recommendation of the respondent No.1/Committee.”
78. A plain reading of the aforesaid observations would show that the
Division Bench rejected the claim of entitlement founded upon the
doctrine of legitimate expectation and categorically held that no person
could claim grant of licence as a matter of right merely on the basis of
carrying on business at Shahdara Market.
79. The reasoning adopted by the Division Bench was founded upon the
statutory framework governing grant, renewal, suspension and
cancellation of licences under the DAPM Act and the General Rules,
2000. Significantly, the statutory provisions referred to therein govern
both Category-„A‟ as well as Category-„B‟ licences.
80. In this regard, Rule 15 of the General Rules, 2000 assumes
significance and may be noticed at this stage:-
“15. Grant of Licences (1) Marketing committee or the Director
where a marketing committee is not functioning, after making such
inquiries as it deem fit may grant or renew a licence or may, after
recording reasons in writing refuse to grant or renew any such
licence.
(2) A person desirous of obtaining a licence for the use of any place
in the market yard/area for the marketing of agricultural produce or
for operating there in as a trader, commission agent, broker,
processor, weighman, measurer, surveyor, warehouseman or in any
other capacity in relation to the marketing of agricultural produce,
shall apply in Form „A‟ or „I, in duplicate to the Secretary of the
committee in whose jurisdiction he wishes to carry on his business
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
37
or marketing of agricultural produce and shall deposit with the
committee, the requisite licence fee and requisite security in cash.
(3) Subject to security amount as may be fixed by the marketing
committee under bye-laws, the licence fee for licences issued under
this rule shall be as under:
Category of Licencees Licence Fee (Rs.)per annum
A. Traders (wholesalers) including flour
mills,oil expellers, dal mills, who purchase
the agricultural produce to sell it after processing – 100/-
B. Commission agents carrying on business
in the principal market or
subsidiary market– 100/- ….”
81. A plain reading of Rule 15 would show that both Category-„A‟
traders/wholesalers and Category-„B‟ commission agents are governed
by the same statutory framework regulating grant and renewal of
licences. The competent authority retains discretion to grant or renew a
licence after conducting such inquiry as may be deemed fit and may also
refuse grant or renewal by recording reasons in writing.
82. The distinction now sought to be drawn by the petitioners between
Category-„A‟ and Category-„B‟ licences, therefore, does not materially
alter the legal principle recognized by the Division Bench, namely, that
no vested or enforceable right can be claimed contrary to the governing
statutory provisions and policy framework.
83. The observations rendered by the Division Bench in relation to
Resolution No. 34/2000, Resolution No. 115/2015 and allotment through
e-auction are equally applicable to the present batch of petitions. The
Division Bench expressly upheld the authority of the respondent Board
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
38
to regulate grant of licences and allotment of shops/spaces in accordance
with the prevailing policy regime.
84. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ratio laid down by
Division Bench in APMC v . Sabzi Traders Wholesellers Association
Ghazipur Sabji Mandi Case (supra),squarelygoverns the principal
controversy arising in the present batch of petitions and the distinction
sought to be urged on the basis of Category-„A‟ and Category-„B‟
licences is liable to be rejected.
E. RECONSTITUTION AND DERIVATIVE RIGHTS
85. The last issue which arises for consideration pertains to those
petitions wherein the petitioners seek recognition of
reconstitution/change in constitution, substitution and continuation of
licensing rights on the basis of Section 71 of the DAPM Act, 1998 and
Rule 24 of the General Rules, 2000.
86. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that change
in constitution is merely an act of intimation and once the requisite
information and prescribed fee are furnished, the respondent authorities
are bound to recognize the reconstitution/change in constitution as a
matter of right.
87. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon
Section 71 of the DAPM Act, 1998 and Rule 24 of the General Rules,
2000:-
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Section 71 of the DAPM Act, 1998 :-
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
39
“71. Intimation about change of constitution of a firm etc. – Every
trader or commission agent shall furnish to the Marketing
Committee the information about the change of constitution,
discontinuance of the business, dissolution, partition of a fir,
company, corporation, association of persons, etc. or the death of
any person connected therewith within fifteen days of the occurrence
of any of such event.”
Rule 24 of the General Rules, 2000:
“24. Intimation about change of constitution of a firm etc.
(1) Every trader or commission agent shall furnish to the Marketing
Committee the information about the change of constitution,
discontinuance of the business, dissolution, partition of a firm,
company, corporation, association of persons etc. or the death of
any person connected therewith within fifteen days of the occurrence
of any of such event.
(2) The committee, on being satisfied about the correctness of the
intimation shall order necessary corrections to be made in the
licence subject to the terms and conditions of allotment of shop /
plot, if any, to the licencee.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) if the firm
fails to give necessary intimation to the Secretary of the committee
within the specified time, the changes, referred in sub-rule (1) above,
shall be deemed to result in the constitution of a new firm / company
etc. necessitating a fresh licence.”
88. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon Resolution No.
83/2013 dated 13.06.2013 and Resolution No. 18/2015 dated 16.06.2015
to contend that once the prescribed reconstitution fee stood deposited,
the respondent authorities were under an obligation to recognize the
change in constitution and consequential rights flowing therefrom.
89. A plain reading of Section 71 of the DAPM Act and Rule 24 of the
General Rules, 2000 would show that the statutory scheme merely
contemplates furnishing of information regarding change in constitution,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
dissolution, discontinuance or related events concerning the licence
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
40
holder. Rule 24(2) further contemplates that the Committee, upon being
satisfied regarding correctness of the intimation, may order necessary
corrections in the licence subject to the terms and conditions of allotment
of shop/plot, if any, applicable to the licensee.
90. The statutory framework therefore does not support the proposition
canvassed by the petitioners that mere furnishing of intimation or
payment of reconstitution fee automatically compels the respondent
authorities to recognize a derivative claim for allotment irrespective of
the governing allotment policy and eligibility conditions.
91. The Resolutions relied upon by the petitioners also do not advance
their case any further. The said Resolutions essentially prescribe the fee
structure and procedural mechanism governing applications relating to
reconstitution/change in constitution. However, neither the said
Resolutions nor the statutory provisions relied upon by the petitioners
override the governing policy framework concerning allotment of
shops/spaces at Gazipur Market.
92. The expression employed in Rule 24(2), namely, “ subject to the
terms and conditions of allotment of shop/plot, if any ,” assumes
significance and clearly preserves the authority of the respondent Board
and the competent authorities to regulate allotment in accordance with
the prevailing policy framework and applicable eligibility conditions.
93. Consequently, even assuming that a change in constitution or
substitution came to be recognized or recorded by the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
authorities, the same by itself could not create any independent or
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
41
enforceable right of allotment contrary to the prevailing policy regime
including the e-auction framework adopted by the respondent Board.
94. In the considered opinion of this Court, the derivative claims
founded upon reconstitution/change in constitution, substitution or
continuation of licensing rights cannot travel beyond the rights originally
available to the licence holder himself and consequently remain subject
to the same statutory limitations, eligibility conditions and policy
framework governing allotment at Gazipur Market.
95. The present batch of petitions essentially emanates from the
historical transition of the wholesale fruits and vegetables trade from the
erstwhile Shahdara Market to Gazipur Market and the competing claims
which thereafter arose concerning grant of licences, rehabilitation and
allotment of shops/spaces. Over the years, the controversy has travelled
through multiple rounds of litigation, administrative deliberations,
committee recommendations and policy decisions. However,
notwithstanding the prolonged history of the dispute and the repeated
assertions advanced by the petitioners, this Court finds that the
foundational premise underlying the present batch of petitions, namely,
that holding or renewal of a „B‟ category licence by itself creates an
enforceable right of allotment at Gazipur Market, is legally
unsustainable.
96. The statutory framework governing the field consistently maintains
a distinction between grant/renewal of licence on the one hand and
allotment of shops/spaces on the other. The material placed on record
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
42
further establishes that allotment at Gazipur Market was never
contemplated as an automatic consequence flowing from mere
possession of a licence. The various resolutions, committee deliberations
and judicial proceedings relied upon by the petitioners at best
contemplated consideration of eligible claims in accordance with law
and subject to the governing policy framework. None of the same can be
construed as creating an indefeasible or vested right of allotment
enforceable in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
97. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the governing
framework itself underwent substantial change over a period of time.
The restriction imposed upon grant of fresh licences, the subsequent
deregulation of fruits and vegetables and finally the adoption of the e-
auction mechanism under Resolution No. 115/2015 fundamentally
altered the manner in which shops/spaces at Gazipur Market were liable
to be dealt with. The validity of the said framework already stands
affirmed by this Court including by the Division Bench in APMC v .
Sabzi Traders Wholesellers Association Ghazipur Sabji Mandi Case ,
(supra). Consequently, the petitioners cannot now seek to assert a
preferential or protected right contrary to the prevailing statutory and
policy regime.
98. The attempt made by the petitioners to distinguish the present batch
from the principles laid down by the Division Bench on the basis of
Category-„A‟ and Category-„B‟ licences also does not merit acceptance.
The legal principle recognized therein was not confined merely to the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
43
nature of licence involved but rather to the broader proposition that no
claim founded upon legitimate expectation can override the governing
statutory framework and policy decisions regulating the field. The
statutory provisions governing grant and renewal of licences apply
equally to both categories and consequently the ratio laid down by the
Division Bench squarely governs the controversy involved in the present
batch as well.
99. Insofar as the petitions seeking recognition of reconstitution/change
in constitution, substitution and continuation of licensing rights are
concerned, this Court finds that the statutory provisions relied upon by
the petitioners merely contemplate furnishing of intimation and
correction of licensing records subject to the governing terms and
conditions. Recognition of such changes by itself cannot create any
independent or derivative right of allotment contrary to the prevailing
allotment policy and eligibility conditions framed by the competent
authorities.
100. Ultimately, what the petitioners seek from this Court is not merely
consideration of their claims, but a declaration of entitlement to
allotment dehors the governing policy framework. Grant of such relief
would amount to substituting the statutory and administrative framework
governing allotment at Gazipur Market with judicially created
preferences unsupported either by the statute or by the policy decisions
operating in the field. Such an exercise would clearly fall beyond the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
44
permissible contours of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
IV. CONCLUSION
101. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no infirmity in the
impugned order warranting interference. The present batch of writ
petitions is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
JULY 07, 2026
SA
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:09.07.2026
19:18:11
45