Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 14 (PNJ)

Shiva Trading Co. v. State of Punjab

2001-01-04

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners claim that they are engaged in the business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce. They have their business premises in the Grain Market, Dhuri. 2. On July 13, 2000, Punjab Government denotified the old market yard, Dhuri and notified a new market. In pursuance to this notification, they were to be uprooted from their premises of business. Consequently, they filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11520 of 2000. The petitioners prayed that the notification be quashed. The writ petition was disposed of by the Bench, of which one of us (N.K. Sud, J.) was a Member, vide order dated August 30, 2000. The petitioners prayer that the Notification be quashed, was rejected. However, the petitioners were permitted to apply for the allotment of new shops/sites in the new market area within a period of ten days. It was further directed that the authorities shall consider the application and take a decision on the same within eight weeks. Till then, the petitioners were to be permitted to operate from the denotified market. The petitioners allege that they had submitted the application on September 4, 2000. 3. By a subsequent communication, the Administrator of the New Mandi Township, Punjab had called upon the petitioners to supply certain information. They were also informed that the plots are to be allotted "on the average price of the last auction held on 12.5.1998 at Dhuri plus 15% compound interest from the date of last auction to the date of allotment. The tentative rate works out to be Rs. 5,829/- per square yard upto 25.10.2000." The petitioners were called upon to send the requisite information. A copy of the letter dated October 10, 2000 has been produced as Annexure P3 with this petition. Aggrieved by this communication, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition with the following prayer : "Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing impugned notification dated 13.7.2000 (Annexure P-1) and impugned order dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure P-3)." 4. Subsequently, the petitioners have also filed miscellaneous application Nos. 28310 and 28311 of 2000, alongwith which they have produced a copy of the communication dated November 17, 2000, issued from the office of the Market Committee, Dhuri to petitioner No. 10, by which it was directed to shift to the New Mandi. Subsequently, the petitioners have also filed miscellaneous application Nos. 28310 and 28311 of 2000, alongwith which they have produced a copy of the communication dated November 17, 2000, issued from the office of the Market Committee, Dhuri to petitioner No. 10, by which it was directed to shift to the New Mandi. The petitioners have prayed for stay of the operation of the direction. 5. In response to the notice of motion, a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (viz. the Punjab Mandi Board and the Market Committee, Dhuri). The claims made by the petitioners have been controverted. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 7. Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a two- fold prayer. Firstly, it has been submitted that the denotification of the old market was invalid. Secondly, the counsel has submitted that the respondents have failed to comply with the directions of this Court given by order dated August 30, 2000 in Civil Writ Petition No. 11520 of 2000. Thus, they are not entitled to direct the petitioners to close their business in the old market. Lastly, the counsel has submitted that the tentative price, as communicated vide letter dated October 10, 2000, is highly excessive and unreasonable. Thus, the order dated October 10, 2000 (a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P3 with the petition) should be quashed. 8. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. Three questions that arise for decision are : (1) Is the order of denotification, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P1 with the writ petition, is liable to be quashed ? (2) Is the communication dated October 10, 2000 illegal and thus liable to be quashed ? (3) Is the tentative price, as communicated to the petitioners, unreasonable ? Regarding (1) 9. Admittedly, the petitioners had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11520 of 2000 to challenge the notification dated July 13, 2000. They had prayed that this notification be quashed. The Bench after considering the matter had categorically rejected the contention. The matter having been decided vide order dated August 30, 2000, the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing the this notification cannot be accepted. The first question is answered against the petitioners. The prayer is rejected. They had prayed that this notification be quashed. The Bench after considering the matter had categorically rejected the contention. The matter having been decided vide order dated August 30, 2000, the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing the this notification cannot be accepted. The first question is answered against the petitioners. The prayer is rejected. Regarding 2 10. The petitioners submitted that the communication dated October 10, 2000 deserves to be set-aside. We have perused this letter. It was issued by the Administrator in pursuance to the application for allotment submitted by the petitioner. By this letter, the second petitioner (to whom this letter was addressed) was called upon to supply the following information :- "2. Before taking further action to allot the plot to you in Anaj Mandi Dhuri as per decision of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh dated 30.8.2000, you are requested to supply the following documents/information as laid down in Allotment Policy, 1998 of the Punjab Government :- (a) Attested copy of the licence issued by the Secretary Market Committee Dhuri for the period 1.9.1995 to 31.8.2000. (b) Proof of Market fee paid during 1.9.1996 to 31.8.2000. (c) The certificate of Market Committee Dhuri that your licence was not suspended/revoked for a period exceeding 3 months at a time during the last 2 years for violation of any rule and non-payment of market-fee etc. (d) Proof that you have independent premises either owned or rented in the old mandi. (e) An affidavit, duly attested by Ist Class Magistrate, that the applicant does not own any plot in any Mandi of the State." 11. Admittedly, similar letters were addressed to all the petitioners, who had applied for allotment of plots. 12. This information was apparently needed to determine as to whether or not the petitioners had been carrying on the business in the market. The information was relevant for determining their entitlement to allotment. The petitioners have admittedly not supplied this information to the respondents till today. The only explanation given by Mr. Dhuriwala is that the information was not supplied as the petitioners had chosen to come to the High Court. This, in our view, is not a ground to hold that the demand for furnishing information was unreasonable or that the communication suffers from any illegality. 13. The only explanation given by Mr. Dhuriwala is that the information was not supplied as the petitioners had chosen to come to the High Court. This, in our view, is not a ground to hold that the demand for furnishing information was unreasonable or that the communication suffers from any illegality. 13. Mr Dhuriwala contends that the respondents are calling upon the petitioners to shift without complying with the directions of this Court. According to him, the Court while disposing of Civil Writ petition No. 11520 of 2000 had directed the competent authority to decide the applications for allotment within 8 weeks and since the authority failed to decide the same, the petitioners cannot be ordered to be evicted. 14. Even this contention is misconceived. Admittedly, the petitioners have submitted applications for allotment. On receipt of applications, they were called upon to furnish the above noted information. The petitioners have failed to provide the information. In this situation, it is held that the petitioners are themselves adopting dilatory tactics so as to avoid the decision of their applications. They have not supplied the information to the concerned authority. They cannot blame the authority for not taking a decision on their application. They are prolonging their stay in the old market. Consequently, the letter as written on November 17, 2000, vide which they were called upon to shift their business to the new Mandi. We find no violation of the order passed by the Bench of this Court. 15. On a consideration of the matter, we are satisfied that there is no illegality in the communication dated October 10, 2000, which may persuade us to set it aside. The authorities have asked the petitioners to furnish the information, which was relevant for decision of their applications. But the petitioners have failed to furnish the information. Thus, the authorities cannot be blamed for not taking a decision on their applications in the absence of the relevant information. Resultantly, even the second question is answered against the petitioners. Regarding (3) 16. Lastly, it has been contended that the tentative rate, as fixed by the authorities, was highly unreasonable. 17. A perusal of the letter dated October 10, 2000 shows that the authorities had indicated the tentative price to the petitioners. They were entitled to represent to the authorities and to show that the price fixed was unreasonable. They have not done so. 17. A perusal of the letter dated October 10, 2000 shows that the authorities had indicated the tentative price to the petitioners. They were entitled to represent to the authorities and to show that the price fixed was unreasonable. They have not done so. Still further, even in the writ petition nothing has been produced to show as to what was the cost price of the land; what was the cost of the development etc; or as to what would be a reasonable price. In the absence of material on record, we are tuneable to accept the contention that the proposed tentative rate is unreasonable. 18. Mr Dhuriwala has referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme court in M/s. Labha Ram and Sons v. State of Punjab, 1998(2) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 529. In particular, the counsel has referred to the observations in paragraph 14, wherein it has been observed by their Lordships that the establishment of new Mandi should not be used as a means to generate revenue. There is no quarrel with the proposition. However, in the present case, the petitioners have not furnished any information with the Court on the basis of which it may even prima facie be established that the respondents are trying to generate revenue. 19. Still further, the counsel has referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Mangla Trading Co. v. State of Haryana and others, 1998(2) Punjab Law Reporter 621 to contend that the burden of development charges cannot be placed on one category of allottees only. There is no quarrel even with this proposition. 20. It is certainly true that the cost of acquisition and development etc. should be equally shared by the two viz. the allottees as well as auction- purchasers. However, in the present case, there is nothing to show that the cost is being recovered from the petitioners only. 21. In view of the above, we find no merit even in the third contention, which is also answered against the petitioners. 22. Faced with this situation, Mr. Dhuriwala has submitted that respondent No. 2 having not filed any reply, the inference should have been drawn against the Administrator of the New Mandi Township. We are unable to accept this contention. In view of the above, we find no merit even in the third contention, which is also answered against the petitioners. 22. Faced with this situation, Mr. Dhuriwala has submitted that respondent No. 2 having not filed any reply, the inference should have been drawn against the Administrator of the New Mandi Township. We are unable to accept this contention. We have examined the case of the petitioners on the hypothesis that the facts, as alleged by them, have not been controverted by the second respondent. Yet we cannot lose sight of the facts that firstly the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed their reply and secondly, the facts are apparent from the documents on record. It is apparently on the basis of the documents on record that we have drawn the above conclusions. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.