M/S Nemichand Prakash Chand Jain License Holder Trading Firm Of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Ganj Basod vs M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22069
1 WP-8520-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
nd
ON THE 22 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8520 of 2026
M/S NEMICHAND PRAKASH CHAND JAIN LICENSE HOLDER
TRADING FIRM OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI GANJ BASOD
Versus
M.P. STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Bansal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shyam Prakash Jain - Advocate for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"(i) That, a Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or any
otherappropriate Writ, Order or Direction may kindly be issued
forquashing the impugned order/communication dated
29.09.2025(Annexure-P/1) as also the further impugned
communicationdated 15.12.2025 (Annexure-P/4) issued by the
respondentNo. 2 Mandi Samiti.

(ii) That, the respondents in particular the respondents No. 2 to 4
may kindly be directed not to evict/disposess the petitioner firm
from the shop-cum-godown in question (as described hereinabove)
without following the due procedure contemplated under law
especially the provisions contained in M.P. Lok Parishar
(Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974.

(iii) Any other such orders or directions which the Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
in order to meet the ends of justice, be also passed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the
respondent Mandi Samiti, particularly in issuing the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/23/2026
11:29:08 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22069
2 WP-8520-2026
communications directing the petitioner firm to vacate the shop-cum-godown

and hand over vacant possession, is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional, as the said structure has been constructed by the petitioner
firm at its own cost and expense on the plot allotted to it under a duly
executed and registered lease deed dated 27.01.1995.
It is further submitted that the petitioner firm continues to remain in
lawful possession and occupation of the said shop-cum-godown and the lease
deed executed in its favour has neither been validly determined nor
terminated in accordance with law, and therefore continues to subsist. In
terms of the conditions of the said lease deed, the petitioner firm is also
entitled to seek renewal of the lease for a further period of thirty years. In
such circumstances, the direction issued by the respondent authorities to
vacate the premises and deliver possession is wholly unjustified, arbitrary
and violative of the petitioner’s legal and contractual rights.
Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it is further
contended that even assuming, though not admitting, that the respondent
Mandi Samiti considers the occupation of the petitioner firm to be
unauthorized, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed except by following the
due process of law. The provisions of the M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli)
Adhiniyam, 1974 are fully applicable to the premises in question, and any
eviction can only be carried out strictly in accordance with the procedure
prescribed therein. The law in this regard stands settled by the Division
Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2317/2010 (Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Vijaypur vs. State of M.P. and others ), wherein reliance has been placed on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/23/2026
11:29:08 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22069
3 WP-8520-2026
the Full Bench decision in Meena Agrawal (Smt.) vs. Chief Municipal

Officer, Municipal Council, Shivpuri and others, reported in 2008 (3) MPLJ
153.
In view of the above, the impugned communications are liable to be
quashed and the respondents deserve to be restrained from dispossessing the
petitioner firm except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Mandi Samiti submits
that the petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal, as the
petitioner’s lease expired on 30.09.2025 and no subsisting right remains in
its favour. It is contended that after shifting of all Mandi activities to the new
premises, the respondent is entitled to resume possession of the old premises
in accordance with law and policy, and the petitioner cannot claim renewal
as a matter of right.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was inducted into possession
pursuant to a duly executed lease deed and has constructed the shop-cum
godown at its own cost. The record further reveals that the respondents,
instead of resorting to the procedure prescribed under the relevant statutory
framework, have sought to dispossess the petitioner by issuing administrative
directions calling upon it to vacate the premises. Such a course of action is
impermissible in law. Even assuming the case of the respondents that the
lease period has expired or the occupation of the petitioner has become
unauthorized, the respondents are under a legal obligation to follow the due
process contemplated under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/23/2026
11:29:08 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22069
4 WP-8520-2026
1974 before effecting eviction. The law in this regard stands fortified by the

Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 2317/2010 (Krishi Upaj
Mandi Samiti, Vijaypur vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 16.07.2018,
wherein it has been held that eviction from Mandi premises can only be
undertaken in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the
Adhiniyam of 1974.
This Court is also of the considered opinion that the impugned
communications suffer from arbitrariness and are violative of the principles
of natural justice, inasmuch as they seek to deprive the petitioner of
possession without adjudication by the competent authority under the statute.
The respondents have failed to demonstrate that any proceedings, as
contemplated under the Adhiniyam of 1974, were initiated or concluded
prior to issuance of the impugned communications. In absence thereof, the
action of the respondent Mandi Samiti is clearly unsustainable.
Consequently, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. The impugned communications dated 29.09.2025 and 15.12.2025
issued by the respondent Mandi Samiti are quashed. The matter is remitted to
the Competent Authority to initiate proceedings on the application to be filed
by the respondent-Mandi Samiti under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1974
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and the
Competent Authority shall thereafter decide the same on merits, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a further period of
two weeks.
It is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to take recourse
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/23/2026
11:29:08 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22069
5 WP-8520-2026
to appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with law, and until such

procedure is duly followed and an order is passed by the competent
authority, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the premises in
question.
The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 7/23/2026
11:29:08 AM