Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1001 (RAJ)

Vijay Raj Kailash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

2003-07-21

ANIL DEV SINGH, H.R.PANWAR

body2003
Honble SINGH, CJ.–These appeals raise common questions of fact and law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. (2). The appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.01.2003 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3915/2002 etc. By that order the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions basing its decision on an earlier judgment rendered in M/s. Marudhar Trading Co., Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1). (3). The State Government established Krishi Upaj Mandi Samities at District Jodhpur and at various other places. This was done in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6 of the Rajasthan agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (for short `the Act). (4). In the instant appeals we are concerned with Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur. The Samiti constructed shops in the Municipal Market Yards. Initially the Samiti invited applications for allotment of shops to traders who were eligible for allotment on the basis of original Policy, taking into account the length of business, turnover and market fee paid by the traders. Subsequently, this Policy was changed and the Samiti started allotment of shops by way of auction. (5). The appellants before us were allotted shops after they participated in the auctions as per the following details:- Ø- la- uke QkeZ nqdku la- vf/klwpuk fuykehfnukad fuykeh fnukad dCtk frfFk ,xzhesaV fnukad cdk;kjkfkekgtqykbZ 03 rd 1. ftrsUnz VsªMlZ bZ-r`rh;-1 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 25250 2. nyky guoarjkt bZZ-r`rh;-2 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 25250 3. Hkxorh VsªfMax da bZ-r`rh;-3 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 23750 4. xqykcpUn ,.M dEiuh bZ-r`rh;-4 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 42820 5. y{eh ,tsUlht ,.M dEiuh bZ-r`rh;-10 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 24600 6. Hkxorh czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-11 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 27760 7. izdkk VsªfMx dEiuh bZ-r`rh;-13 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 29500 8. egky{eh VsªMlZ bZ-r`rh;-14 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 27600 9. fo".kq czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-15 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 81960 10. egkohj VsªfMax dEiuh bZ-r`rh;-16 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 91460 11. Hkokuh czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-18 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 67940 12. vt; czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-20 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 84700 13. pkWaney vfHk"ksd th-f}rh;-20 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 23598 14. fjgrs"k VsªfMzx dEiuh ,p-1 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 21000 15. egkohj VsªfMax dEiuh bZ-r`rh;-16 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 91460 11. Hkokuh czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-18 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 67940 12. vt; czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-20 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 84700 13. pkWaney vfHk"ksd th-f}rh;-20 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 23598 14. fjgrs"k VsªfMzx dEiuh ,p-1 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 21000 15. dapu gkÅl ,p-11 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 – 16. foosd ,UVj izkbZtst ,p-19 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 – 17. fot;jkt dSykk pUnz MCY;w-5 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 29.1.1997 3.3.1997 – 18. e:/kj VsªfMax dEiuh MCY;w-7 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 26.8.95 30.9.2000 30.9.2000 121000 19. ckcwyky pEikyky MCY;w-10 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 14.7.2000 29.1.1997 29.1.1997 – 20. dklyhoky czknlZ MCY;w-11 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 26.8.95 29.1.1997 29.1.1997 – 21. vfuy dqekj fouksn dqekj MCY;w-12 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 26.8.95 29.1.1997 29.1.1997 – 22. vksdpan lqjsk dqekj MCY;w-18 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 26.8.95 29.1.1997 29.1.1997 – lfpo d`f"k mit e.Mh lfefr ¼vukt½ tks/kiqj uksV%&1- Øa- la- 13 esa nkkZ;h x;h jkfk foyEc kqYd dh gSA 2- gj ekg dh 20 rkjh[k rd vkaoVu kqYd@fdjk;k tek djkus dk izko/kku gSA 3- foyac kqYd 3 izfrkr dh nj ls i`Fkd ls olwyh dh tkuh gSA 4- x`gdj i`Fkd ls lEcfU/kr QeZ dks tek djokuk gSA (7). As is apparent from above chart, the appellants and the Samiti entered into an agreements to effectuate and formalise the arrangements between them resulting from the acceptance of the appellants bids made at the above auctions. The appellants in the beginning honoured the agreements and paid the rent of the shops which were allotted to them. It appears that after sometime they become wiser and stopped paying the rent on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra & Co. & 17 Ors. vs. State & Ors. (2), did not approve of the system of auction. This judgment was rendered by the Division Bench on 06.03.2002, much after the appellants had taken possession of the shops and the execution of the agreements. Since the appellants had ceased to pay the rent, the Market Samiti issued notice to the appellants to vacate the premises. The appellants, being aggrieved by the notice issued to them by the Market Samiti, filed the aforementioned writ petitions in this Court. (8). Since the appellants had ceased to pay the rent, the Market Samiti issued notice to the appellants to vacate the premises. The appellants, being aggrieved by the notice issued to them by the Market Samiti, filed the aforementioned writ petitions in this Court. (8). As already pointed out, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions relying upon the earlier Single Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Marudhar Trading Co., Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra). (9). We have heard learned counsel for the parties. (10). It is not in dispute that the appellants participated in the auctions held by the Market Samiti and as a result of the bids given by them they were put in possession of the shops. They also executed agreements with the Market Samiti in consonance with the basis on which their bids were accepted. (11). Having taken benefit of the acceptance of their bids and consequent possession of the shops the appellants cannot turn back and urge that the Policy of putting the shops to auction was untenable. The learned Single Judge applying the principle of acquiescence, rejected the challenge of the appellants. The learned Single Judge while dismissed the writ petitions placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, M/s. Pannalal Court, namely, M/s. Pannalal Binjraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (3), Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan & Ors. (4), Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (5), State of Punjab vs. Krishan Niwas (6), State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Narain Prasad (7), State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar & Party & Anr. (8) and Kali Prasad & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. (9), wherein it was held that once an order is passed and accepted by the party and from that order it derives benefit and advantage for sometime, the party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of that order. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly disallowed the appellants from assailing the validity of the policy of auction by virtue of which they have been deriving benefit of the possession of the shops and took advantage by utilising them for trading purpose. The parties entered into the bargain on the footing that the appellant shall pay the agreed rent based on bids given by them in open auction. The parties entered into the bargain on the footing that the appellant shall pay the agreed rent based on bids given by them in open auction. Single the appellants seek to wriggle out of their basic obligation, the entire bargain will perish. In that even, as a necessary corollary the appellants will be required to give up the possession of the shops. (12). It is pertinent to point out that the appellants were allotted shops by virtue of the auction held on 28.10.1999 and 26.08.1995. Vishnu Brokers, Kanchan House and Vijay Raj Kailash Chand were put in possession on 10th of April 2000 and 29th January 1997 respectively. After having enjoyed the possession of the shops and having derived benefit of being able to trade in the shops, they stopped paying the rent and challenged the policy only in September, 2002. The writ petitions, therefore, were clearly barred by laches. (13). The reliance of learned counsel for the appellant to the Division Bench judgment in M/s. Marudhar Trading Co., Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), is of no avail to the appellants inasmuch as the decision was rendered much after the allocation of shops to the appellants. In that case the writ petition was filed by traders who had not been allotted the shops and they were seeking allotment on the basis of merit which, according to the earlier policy was to be determined on the basis of length of licence, turnover and market fee paid by the traders. That petition was not filed by the alloltees who had secured possession of the shops as a result of the acceptance of their bids at the auction. The learned Single Judge had given option to the appellants to vacate the shops and to join the traders who were waiting in the queue for their turn on the basis of the merit list. The appellants declined the offer. Even today, the same offer was made to the appellants but the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants were not willing to vacate the premises. (14). Having secured the shops on priority basis by jumping over the queue, the appellants cannot now be allowed to challenge the fixation of rent which was the result of the bids which were given by them at the auction. (15). In the circumstances, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.