Statutory licensing under DAPM Act confers no vested right to shop allotment dehors e-auction policy.

The petitioners are traders and commission agents associated with the erstwhile Shahdara Fruit and Vegetable Market. Following the market's relocation in 1997 due to the Delhi Metro Rail Project, the respondents developed the Ghazipur Market

The petitioners, holding 'B' category licenses under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998 (DAPM Act), sought allotment of shops/spaces at Ghazipur Market

Their claims were rejected by the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (DAMB) via an order dated 16.10.2020

The respondents contended that allotment is now governed by a 2015 E-auction policy and that the petitioners failed to meet specific eligibility criteria, such as continuous functioning and prior temporary allotment

The petitioners challenged this rejection, asserting a legitimate expectation of rehabilitation based on their license renewals and past judicial deliberations

1. Whether the grant or renewal of a 'B' category license under the DAPM Act confers a vested or enforceable right to the allotment of a shop/space at the market yard

2. Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies to stall the implementation of the E-auction policy for vacant shops

3. Whether derivative rights (reconstitution of firms or inheritance) automatically entitle successors to allotment dehors the prevailing policy framework

The court primarily applied the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998 and Rule 15 of the General Rules, 2000, which grants authorities the discretion to grant or refuse licenses based on inquiries

The court relied on Rule 24 of the General Rules, 2000, stating that license corrections for firm changes are "subject to terms and conditions of allotment"

The court reinforced the precedent from APMC v. Sabzi Traders Wholesellers Association (LPA 335/2020), which established that no wholesalers can claim allotment as a matter of right solely based on past business at Shahdara, and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override statutory rules or policy decisions like E-auctions

The court reasoned that licensing and allotment operate in distinct legal domains; holding a statutory license to trade does not equate to a property right in a specific market shop

The court noted that the respondents had established specific eligibility criteria in 2009 (e.g., continuous functioning, temporary shifting) which the petitioners failed to satisfy

Regarding the E-auction policy (Resolution No. 115/2015), the court held that once a policy is adopted for public interest and welfare, it supersedes any prior inchoate claims

The court further observed that deregulation of fruits and vegetables in 2014 allows traders to operate outside notified yards, diminishing the claim of absolute necessity for internal allotment

The court further observed that deregulation of fruits and vegetables in 2014 allows traders to operate outside notified yards, diminishing the claim of absolute necessity for internal allotment

Finally, the court dismissed the derivative claims, stating that heirs or reconstituted firms cannot possess better rights than the original licensees, who themselves lacked a vested right to allotment

The court affirmed the DAMB order dated 16.10.2020, ruling that the E-auction framework is valid and applicable to all vacant shops

It concluded that judicial interference under Article 226 is not warranted when the administrative decision is based on a valid policy framework and statutory rules. All pending applications were disposed of