Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3121 (ALL)

MATEEN AHMAD KHAN v. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI

2009-09-14

DILIP GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2009
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.C. Mehrotra appears for Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sitapur Road, Lucknow and its Chairman and Secretary, the respondents in the writ petition. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.1998 by which the Chairman of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Lucknow has cancelled the petitioner’s licence issued under Section 17 (ii) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (the Adhiniyam, 1964) on the ground that the petitioners have neither occupied the shops allotted to them in Navin Mandi Sthal Sitapur Road at Dubagga, on 17.4.1996 nor have commenced the business of wholesale trade in fruits and vegetables from the allotted shops. 3. The petitioners were not carrying on business in old market at chowk at Lucknow. On the construction of new market yard a notification was issued under Section 7 (2) (b) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 on 15.5.1991 for shifting the wholesale market in food grains to Sitapur Navin Mandi Sthal. The persons, who were doing business in the old market were required to shift their business to the new market yard, in the newly constructed and allotted shops. A notification to shift wholesale trade of fruits and vegetables was issued on 19.4.1991. It appears that the then Chairman and Secretary of the Market Committee allotted the shops in the ‘producers’ quota to certain persons, who were not doing business in the old markets. All the petitioners were granted licence after the issuance of notification under Section 7 (2) (b) of the Adhiniyam and were allotted the shops in the Navin Mandi Sthal to shift their business. Subhan Ali & Sons had a licence to do business in fruits & vegetables in chowk since 1985-86. Shri Subhan Ali son of Rahim Bux-respondent No. 6 was allotted a shop in Navin Mandi Sthal on 25.6.1996. 4. The petitioners did not start their business in the new market yard and thus a show cause notice was issued to them on 21.1.1998. In reply to these notices the petitioner admitted that they were not doing business in the old market at Chowk and that they could not commence business in the new market from 1996 onwards as the entire business of food and vegetables did not shift in the new market. In reply to these notices the petitioner admitted that they were not doing business in the old market at Chowk and that they could not commence business in the new market from 1996 onwards as the entire business of food and vegetables did not shift in the new market. There were interim orders in several writ petitions filed by traders not to shift trade to Navin Mandi Sthal until shops are allotted. In the writ petition it is also admitted to the petitioners in para 17 that the petitioners were delivered possession of the shops on 25.6.1996 after the mango season was over. They were depositing market fees but that they did not start their business. In para 19 it is stated that the petitioners were neither licensees in Chowk Mandi Area, Lucknow, nor they were doing any business in old market. The chowk mandi was not completely shifted to the new market area. The petitioners and other similarly situate fruit and vegetable merchants were not able to do their business from the shops allotted to them in the newly created market area. 5. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the allotment orders clearly stated that if the possession of the shop was not obtained, and the business was not started, the Mandi Samiti will reconsider on the decision to allot the shop to the petitioner. The conditions of the allotments of shop also provided that if the business is not transferred to the shop after the possession is obtained, the licence shall be cancelled and that allotment shall be rejected. In condition No. 6 (6) it was provided that if the allottee keep the shop closed for three months, he shall be entitled to be dispossessed from the shop. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the licenses were granted to the petitioners to carry on business in the new market yard but since the entire business could not be shifted, the petitioners could not start sale and purchase in the new market yard. It is further stated by him that after the interim orders was passed by this Court on 11.3.1998, the petitioners are regularly paying rent, and are carrying on business in the new market yard. He prayed for time to file rejoinder affidavit in reply to the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent on 2nd May, 1998. 7. It is further stated by him that after the interim orders was passed by this Court on 11.3.1998, the petitioners are regularly paying rent, and are carrying on business in the new market yard. He prayed for time to file rejoinder affidavit in reply to the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent on 2nd May, 1998. 7. We are not inclined to grant time to file rejoinder affidavit or to bring new facts on record, to examine the validity of the order dated 23.2.1998 by which the petitioner’s licence was cancelled. A copy of the counter affidavit was served on the counsel for petitioner on 27.4.1998. He has not filed rejoinder affidavit in last eleven years. 8. It is submitted by Shri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, that after the construction of the new market yard and the notifications under Section 7 (2)(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1964 dated 15.5.1991 and 19.4.1997 the Chairman and the Secretary of the Market Committee had illegally and arbitrarily allotted the shops to those persons including petitioners, who did not have any business in the old market. They were given licences and allotted the shops for the first time to take away the rights of those traders, who had to shift to the new market yard. The Court had in the writ petition filed by the traders against the shifting of the trade summoned the Director of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad. The Director had admitted that the Chairman and the Secretary of the Market Committee had committed illegalities in allotting the shops to the new licensees, who were granted licences for first time to carry on the business, purportedly for the reasons that the traders in old market will get an opportunity to demonstrate to the Court that there are no more shops available in the new market yard. The Director assured the Court to re-examine the matter and found from the report dated 22.1.1998 of a committee appointed by him that many allottees including the petitioners were not eligible of the shops as they were granted licence in the same year prior to allotment. They did not fulfil the condition of payment of requisite market fees, as a proof and entitlement of business for allotment of shops. 9. They did not fulfil the condition of payment of requisite market fees, as a proof and entitlement of business for allotment of shops. 9. The object of allotment of shop was to shift the old traders to the new market yard to regulate the business. The conditions of the licence clearly provided that the trade had to be shifted to new market yard and that if the allottee keeps the shop locked for more than three months, the allotments were liable to be cancelled. It is admitted that shops were kept locked for about two years and that the business was not started in the new shops and that petitioners had no business in the old market yard. It is thus apparent that the petitioners had obtained allotment by misrepresentation and had no intention to carry out business in the new market yard. 10. The order cancelling the licence and allotment of shops does not suffer from any error of law and thus the matter does not call for any interference of the Court. The writ petition is dismissed. ————