Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2235 (RAJ)

Mohammad Rafiq v. Babulal Pawan Kumar

2006-07-17

S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 112.1993 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had preferred the writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to allot shop to the appellant-firm in the Sabji Mandi Block at Sri Ganganagar. 2. The case of the appellant, briefly, is that it is a proprietorship firm carrying on business in chillies in Sri Ganganagar. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sri Ganganagar constructed 24 shops in its market yard for fruit and vegetable dealers and invited applications for allotment. As per the laid down criteria the allotment was to be made on marks/points awarded on the basis of average annual turn over/annual market fee and the duration of the license. The appellant submitted application for allotment. On the basis of marks/points awarded to various applicants a merit list was prepared in which the appellant was placed at Serial No. 22. According to the appellant there being 24 shops for which applications were invited. having been placed at Serial No. 22, it should have been alloted one of the shops. However out of 24 only 18 shops were allotted to fruit and vegetable dealers, the remaining 6 shops were allotted to wholesale grain merchants. The allotment of 6 shops to wholesale Merchants was later cancelled and the shops were put on fresh allotment for which applications were again invited. The appellant submitted application pursuant to the notice. However, arbitrarily, ignoring its claim, shops were allotted to others. The appellant also relied on the old merit list in which it had been placed at Serial No. 22 as mentioned above, in support of its claim for allotment one of the shops. 3. The learned Single Judge took the view that having submitted fresh application pursuant to the second notice, it should be deemed to have acquiesced in the process of fresh allotment and, therefore, the merit position in the old list was irrelevant. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant was dealing in red chillies which does not fall in the category of fruit and vegetable. The learned Single Judge referred to the amendment in the schedule under notification dated 24.09.1986 by virtue of which red chilli was kept in the category of spices. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant was dealing in red chillies which does not fall in the category of fruit and vegetable. The learned Single Judge referred to the amendment in the schedule under notification dated 24.09.1986 by virtue of which red chilli was kept in the category of spices. Finally, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the non-impleadment of the successful applicants who had been allotted shops. 4. Adverting to the last of the grounds taken by the learned Single Judge, Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant had made application for impleadment of the successful allottees on 13.05.1993 on which no order was passed. The learned Judge, therefore, committed error in holding that the petition was not maintainable on account of their non-joinder. Counsel tried to persuade us to hold that the appellant was in fact a dealer in green chillies which comes in the category of vegetable and, therefore, it was eligible for allotment of the shop. Counsel also challenged the finding of the learned Single Judge on the point of acquiescence. 5. In our opinion, the issue lies in a narrow compass. Apart from the fact that under the notification dated 24.09.1986, green chilli was included in the category of spices in the assessment orders under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 i.e., preceding three years produced by the appellant itself , the appellant was described as dealer in red chillies and turmeric. Whereas in the assessment order for the year 1989-90, the produce in which the appellant was dealing has been mentioned as red chillies and turmeric, in the assessment order for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92, the appellant was shown as dealer in red chillies. Apparently, this must be on the own declaration of the appellant. The shops were meant for vegetable and fruit dealers and the appellant being a dealer in spices which does not come in the category of vegetable, we are inclined to think that the appellant was not eligible for allotment of shop. As mentioned above, 6 out of 24 shops had been allotted to the grain merchants which was cancelled because the allotment was meant for fruit and vegetable dealers alone. 6. As mentioned above, 6 out of 24 shops had been allotted to the grain merchants which was cancelled because the allotment was meant for fruit and vegetable dealers alone. 6. Nevertheless, from the minutes of the proceedings of the Allotment Committee alongwith the chart showing the calculation of points/marks awarded to the applicants, being part of the minutes, it is evident that the case of the appellant was considered alongwith others and as a result of such consideration and calculation of marks/points, it was placed at Serial No. 7 As mentioned above, the marks/ points were to be awarded on the basis of the annual turn over, market fee paid by the dealers and duration of the license. Marks/ points were thus awarded to each applicant and a merit list was prepared. No mistake in the calculation of the marks/ points was pointed out to us. In the merit list so prepared, the first five, namely; M/s Pyarelal Hansraj & Company, M/s Guru Nanak Fruit Company, M/s. Janta Trading Company, M/s. Ramchandra Chhagan Lal and M/s. Satguru Fruit Company were allotted shops, One shop was not allotted in view of the order of stay passed by this Court in the present proceedings. The appellant being at Serial No. 7, therefore, cannot make any grievance. Thus, apart from the fact that the appellant was not eligible, its case considered on the basis of the laid down criteria and factors. No error has been pointed out in the preparation of the merit list i.e., calculation of marks we, therefore, find no error in the decision of the Allotment Committee to allot shops in favour of M/s. Pyarelal Hansraj & Company and others. All said and done, the allotments were made in the year 1993 and apart from the fact that the allottees are not before the Court, they have been doing their business for the last 13 years. 7. In the above premises, we find no justification to make any interference in the matter. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal stands dismissed.