Order All the aforesaid writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order as all the petitioners claim to be the licensees of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee of Mussalahpur, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee' for the sake of brevity) and are claimants of shop no. 58 situated in the Market Yard at Mussalahpur, Patna and only the basis is of their respective claims are different, which are described hereinbelow. 2. C.W.J.C. No. 7566 of 2005 has been filed by M/s Md. Ahmad Mumtaz Ahmad challenging letter no. 1213 dated 16.6.2005, by which the Market Secretary of the Committee cancelled the allotment of shop no. 58 in its favour with immediate effect and also for a direction to the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession and continuation of possession of the petitioner in the said shop. The claim of the said petitioner is that it was engaged in fruit business since 1985 and applied for licence before the Committee in the year 1994, where after licence no. 29/1994-95 was granted to it, which was renewed from time to time till the filing of the writ petition. It is also claimed by the petitioner that on 10.8.2004 it applied for allotment of a shop in the: said Market Yard and the Committee allotted the shop in question, namely, shop no. 58 to the petitioner on .15.12.2004, where after agreement dated 28.2.2005 was entered into between the Market Secretary and the petitioner. It was further submitted that only a few months thereafter the said allotment was cancelled by the Market Committee by impugned order dated 16.6.2005 as the petitioner was low in seniority at serial no. 30, whereas, the shop had to be allotted according to seniority as per the order of the Managing Director of the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board' for the sake of brevity) dated 10.6.2005 passed in Appeal No. 1 of 2005 with respect to the same shop no. 58. . 3. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that no notice or information was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order of cancellation and no opportunity was given to it to place its case, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 58. . 3. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that no notice or information was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order of cancellation and no opportunity was given to it to place its case, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also claimed that the petitioner was not a party to Appeal No. 1 of 2005 and hence the order of the Managing Director dated 10.6.2005 was not binding on the petitioner and in any view of the matter the impugned order dated 16.6.2005 was contrary to the said order of the Managing Director dated 10.6.2005 as no direction was given to cancel the petitioner's allotment, whereas, on the other hand by earlier order dated 11.8.2000 passed in Appeal No. 1 of 2000, the Managing Director of the Board himself directed cancellation of allotment of shop no. 58 to S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers as he was never in possession. It was further claimed that the said order dated 11.8.2000 was never challenged by the said S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers and hence it was followed by the authorities by allotting shop no. 58 to the petitioner, which was legal and proper. 4. The other point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the cancellation of the petitioner's licence was also illegal because there was no cancellation clause in the agreement between the petitioner and the Market Secretary. He also averred that according to paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the criterion for allotment of the said shop was seniority-cum-merit and hence seniority was not the sole criterion and the Board never selected solely on the basis of seniority as persons having licences even of 2004-05 had been allotted shops and hence the impugned order is an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. It was also claimed that several shops are available in the Market Yard and the petitioner being at serial no. 30 is still entitled for allotment of a shop and hence it should be allowed to retain shop no. 58, whereas, other shops, which are going to be constructed as per paragraph no. 21 of the counter affidavit of the respondents, may be allotted to other licensees and the petitioner has no objection therein. 5. 30 is still entitled for allotment of a shop and hence it should be allowed to retain shop no. 58, whereas, other shops, which are going to be constructed as per paragraph no. 21 of the counter affidavit of the respondents, may be allotted to other licensees and the petitioner has no objection therein. 5. C.W.J.C. No. 13810 of 2005 has been filed by M/s Rayeen Brothers for a direction to the respondents to allot the aforesaid shop no. 58 of Mussalahpur Market Yard as the petitioner has been doing fruit business since several decades and it shifted its business to Market Yard in open sky in the year 1988, whereafter licence no. 933 of 1988-89 was granted to it, which was renewed up to date and the petitioner has been regularly doing business since the date of licence and is the oldest licensee regularly paying market fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner further claimed that the petitioner has been trying since 1988 for allotment of a shop in the Market Yard, but it could not succeed for the reasons best known to the authorities and finally it filed an application on 25.7.2005 before the Managing Director of the Board, but no heed was paid to its application. Hence it claimed that the allotment of shop no. 58 to M/s Md. Ahmad Mumtaz having been cancelled, the said shop be allotted to the petitioner. 6. C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006 has been filed by one Hassan Imam for directing respondent-authorities to allot vacant shop no. 58 in the Mussalahpur Market Yard to the petitioner and also for restraining the respondents from interfering with his business on the platform (verandah) of the Market Yard, which he is doing since several decades when licence was granted to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petitioner is doing fruit business since several decades and he applied for grant of licence of fruit vending in the year 1990 and, accordingly, on 23.6.1990 licence no. 1121 of 1990-91 was granted to the petitioner by the Committee. He further stated that the petitioner was doing business on the verandah of the Market Yard, which was not sufficient space for his business and hence he applied for allotment of a shop in the Market Yard on 16.6.1990. 7. 1121 of 1990-91 was granted to the petitioner by the Committee. He further stated that the petitioner was doing business on the verandah of the Market Yard, which was not sufficient space for his business and hence he applied for allotment of a shop in the Market Yard on 16.6.1990. 7. He also claimed that when no heed was paid to the petitioner's application and other subsequent licensees were allotted shops in the Market Yard, the petitioner filed C.w.J.C. No. 2535 of 2000, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 19.5.2000 (Annexure-1) permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to ventilate his grievances before the Managing Director of the Board by way of filing an application under Section 38 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) and the Managing Director was directed to dispose of the petitioner's application within a period of one month thereafter. It is further noted in the said order that learned counsel for the Board informed the Court on the basis of oral instructions from his client that there was no move at the moment to oust the petitioner from the space occupied by him on the verandah for his business. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that in compliance of the said order of this Court, he filed an application before the Managing Director of the Board, which was disposed of by the Managing Director of the Board vide order dated 11.8.2000 (Annexure-2) holding that serial number of the petitioner was 9 in the seniority list (Annexure-4) and allotment of shop no. 58 has been made in favour of S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers, who was above in the seniority list, but the allegation was that he had violated the terms of licence and was not in possession of the shop also and if that is so his allotment should be cancelled and the allotment of shop no. 58 shall be considered in favour of the licensees in accordance with their seniority. 9. 58 shall be considered in favour of the licensees in accordance with their seniority. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that when even thereafter no heed was paid to his claim, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 14040 of 2001 and in that case learned counsel for the Market Committee submitted that the Market Committee was going to take up a self-financing scheme for construction of shops within the Mussalahpur Market Yard for the licensees to whom the Market Committee had been unable to provide any shop till now and for that purpose the Market Committee, after taking approval of the Board, would formulate a Scheme and issue a notice within fifteen days of the disposal of the writ petition and the petitioner and others might respond to it, whereafter the shops for them would be constructed under the said Scheme. On the basis of the aforesaid undertaking of learned counsel for the Market Committee, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.3.2003 (Annexure-7). When no step was taken by the authorities in that regard, the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 2289 of 2003 as the Board did not fulfill its undertaking, but the said M.J.C. was dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide• order dated 7.12.2004 as the situation was beyond the control of the authorities. However, observation was made that the petitioner might avail his remedies in accordance with law. 10. In the meantime the Market Secretary vide order dated 19/20.7.2004 (Annexure-8) decided to allot vacant land to the petitioner to construct his shop, which was approved by the Committee on the same date (Annexures-8 series). Thereafter sanction from the Board was required, but nothing was done by any of the authorities for reasons best known to them. It is also stated that in the said circumstances Appeal No. 1 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by the Managing Director of the Board vide order dated 10.6.2005 (Annexure-9) holding that 30 shops were going to be constructed near the Canteen in Mussalahpur Market Yard, but in spite of the aforesaid facts and circumstances neither any shop was constructed in that portion nor any allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically argued that the petitioner was one of the oldest licensees of the Committee, but he has been deprived of any shop in the Market Yard in spite of repeated orders of the Managing Director of the Board and even the orders of the High Court are not being followed although they were passed as per the undertaking given on behalf of respondents themselves. He further argued that shop no. 58 is vacant as no allotment has been made to any other person after cancellation of the allotment of the earlier allottee S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers and moreover there was no occasion for allotting any shop at present to the licensees, to whom spaces have already been allotted. He also argued that the petitioner is not only one of the oldest licensees but is also the oldest applicant for allotment of the shop and has been approaching the authorities of the Committee and the Board for allotment of a shop since 1990 and for the said purpose he has also approached this Court on several occasions and the claim of the petitioner had always been appreciated but in spite of that no allotment of shop has been made in favour of the petitioner. 12. C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006 has been filed by S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers for directing the authorities to restore Licence No. 911 of 1987-88 of the petitioner-firm and to grant him possession of shop no. 58 of Mussalahpur Market Yard and also for quashing the order/letter cancelling the aforesaid licence and allotment of the said shop in favour of the petitioner and for other ancillary reliefs. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is doing his business in Mussalahpur Market Yard since long and was granted licence no. 911 of 1987-88 for the said purpose, whereafter on 29.11.1999 the petitioner applied for allotment of a shop and finally on 17.12.1999 shop no. 58 in Mussalahpur Market Yard was allotted to the petitioner and, accordingly, on 31.12.1999 the petitioner deposited the security money, whereafter lease deed dated 5.1.2000 was executed between the parties and possession of shop no. 58 was given to the petitioner on 25.3.2000. 58 in Mussalahpur Market Yard was allotted to the petitioner and, accordingly, on 31.12.1999 the petitioner deposited the security money, whereafter lease deed dated 5.1.2000 was executed between the parties and possession of shop no. 58 was given to the petitioner on 25.3.2000. He also claimed that the petitioner deposited rent for January and February, 2000 and had been regularly doing his business in the said shop and, accordingly, his licence was renewed for 2004 and the agreement was revalidated for 11 months from 1.2.2003, but thereafter the petitioner's proprietor's wife fell ill and subsequently died of Cancer on 4.2.2006. He averred that taking advantage of the said situation the Market Secretary and respondent no. 5 M/s Md. Ahmad Mumtaz Ahmad occupied the petitioner's shop without cancelling the petitioner's licence for allotment of shop, for which no notice was ever received by the petitioner. Hence he claimed that the action of the respondents, apart from being against the procedures prescribed under the Rules, was violative of the principle of equity and natural justice and hence the petitioner had no remedy but to approach this Court. 14. C.W.J.C. No. 11651 of 2006 has been filed by Md. Goush Alar1 Shoaib Alam for directing the respondent-authorities to allot any shop and/or shop no. 58 situated in Mussalahpur Market Yard to the petitioner's firm, which was the oldest firm having licence no. 764 of 1978-79, due to which he is at serial no. 1 of the licensees and has been doing fruit business since 1978-79 without allotment of any permanent shop in Mussalahpur Market Yard. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petitioner was earlier doing fruit business since 1975 at Krishna Chowk, Frazer Road, Patna and subsequently licence no. 764 of 1978-79 was granted to him by the Managing Committee, whereafter in 1981-82 the petitioner shifted his business on the open verandah of Mussalahpur Market Yard and subsequently the number of his licence was changed to licence no. 764 of 1982-83, which was renewed up to 2006-07. Learned counsel for the petitioner further claimed that he applied for allotment of at least one shop before the Secretary on 14.6.1988 and 11.1.1989, but no shop was allotted to the petitioner and in the meantime shops were allotted to several subsequent licensees without considering the claim of the petitioner. 764 of 1982-83, which was renewed up to 2006-07. Learned counsel for the petitioner further claimed that he applied for allotment of at least one shop before the Secretary on 14.6.1988 and 11.1.1989, but no shop was allotted to the petitioner and in the meantime shops were allotted to several subsequent licensees without considering the claim of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner filed an application on 22.8.2006 before the Market Secretary of the Committee, which was not heeded to and hence the petitioner filed this writ petition. 16. The ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard was that admittedly the petitioner was the oldest licensee as per the seniority list dated 25.8.2006 (Annexure-4A) and the shops were to be given as per the seniority list, which is apparent from order dated 23.5.1991 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2607 of 1991. In this regard, he also referred to direction of the Special Officer of the Committee and the Managing Director of the Board dated 6.1.2004 and 9.8.2006 (Annexures- A & B to the counter-affidavit). Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that if allotment of shop is cancelled on the ground of non-seniority, the petitioner should have to be considered first even for shop no. 58, which was vacant as its earlier allotment to M/s Md. Ahmad Mumtaz Ahmad was cancelled as he was much junior. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the authorities of the Board and the Committee, who are respondents in all the aforesaid writ petitions, stated that the licences are given to the applicants for doing business in the Market Yard, whereas allotment of shop is made as per the date of application for allotment of shop and not as per the seniority in licence. He further stated that if applications for allotment are sought by the Committee by issuance of a notice and several licensees apply within the time prescribed therein, seniority in licences only amongst such applicants has to be considered. 18. Learned counsel for the said respondents also stated that this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2006, passed in C.w.J.C. No. 7566 of 2006 specifically observed that transparent policy was required for allotment and cancellation of shops to the licensees in the Market Yard of the Committee. 18. Learned counsel for the said respondents also stated that this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2006, passed in C.w.J.C. No. 7566 of 2006 specifically observed that transparent policy was required for allotment and cancellation of shops to the licensees in the Market Yard of the Committee. In this connection, he also referred to the decisions of this Court dated 23.5.1991 and 25.3.2003 passed respectively in C.W.J.C. No. 2607 of 1991 and C.W.J.C. No. 14040 of 2001. 19. Learned counsel for respondent authorities also argued that earlier allottee of shop no. 58 was S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers, but he did not do his business in the said shop nor paid rent or fees and let it out to another person, which was against the specific provisions of law and hence his licence and allotment were rightly cancelled by the authorities' concerned. He further claimed that the licensees, whom shops have already been allotted, be allowed to continue, whereas, the remaining shops may be directed to be allotted to the applicants as per their dates of applications and seniority. 20. It may be noted that the claims of each of the writ petitioners are with respect to shop no. 58, which has been challenged by petitioners of other writ petitions on the same grounds, which they had raised in support of their own respective writ petitions and the said claims he already been discussed above separately for each writ petitioners. The respective claims of the parties have to be looked into and decided in accordance with the purpose and provisions of the laws laid down by the legislature from time to time in that regard and settled by the decisions of Courts. 21. The Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act was enacted in 1960 to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State. Hence primary consideration for the development of agricultural marketing was to reorganize the existing system so as to secure for the farmer of his due share of the price paid by the consumers and subserve the needs of planned development. Hence primary consideration for the development of agricultural marketing was to reorganize the existing system so as to secure for the farmer of his due share of the price paid by the consumers and subserve the needs of planned development. For the purposes of these objectives, arrangements were required to be made for the efficient distribution of marketable agricultural articles from producing areas to consuming areas and also for eliminating malpractices associated with buying and selling of agricultural produce, which directly and adversely affected the farmers. 22. With the aforesaid reasons, provisions had been included in the Act for establishment of a market area including a principal Market Yard and Sub-Market Yard and for every market area a Market Committee was provided in the Act and was established as such. Furthermore, for doing business in the said Market Yard, a provision for grant of licences to the applicants was also made in the Act. In furtherance thereof some shops were also to be constructed in the market area for allotment to the licensees, who applied for the same, whereas the other licensees were free to do their business in the open area. 23. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite apparent that the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed there under was that every licensee had to do business within the market premises only and not outside and for that purposes, they were free to use open spaces in the market area. In furtherance thereof some shops were constructed in the market area and those licensees, who wanted to shift their business from the open spaces to those shops, were required to file their applications for the said purpose and those, who did not file any application for allotment of shop, were free to do their business in the open spaces etc. This aspect of the Statute makes it clear that licences for doing business in the market premises and allotment of shops are two different matters, which cannot be intermingled. 24. In the said circumstances, the allotlJ1ent of shops to the applicants cannot be done only on the basis of seniority in the list of licensees, rather the date of application by such licensees for allotment of shop has also to be considered. 24. In the said circumstances, the allotlJ1ent of shops to the applicants cannot be done only on the basis of seniority in the list of licensees, rather the date of application by such licensees for allotment of shop has also to be considered. If any application for allotment is sought by the Committee by publication of any notice and several licensees apply within the time given in the notice, the seniority in licence among those applicants has to be considered. But in the instant case, no such notice has been brought on record or has been claimed either by the writ petitioners or by the respondent-authorities and in all the aforesaid cases, applications had been made for allotment of shops by the licensees from time to time individually as per their requirements after coming to know about any shop being vacant specially shop no. 58, which is in question in all the aforesaid writ petitions. 25. Thus a transparent and uniform policy was required for allotment of shops to the licensees or its cancellation, but the authorities of the Board did not formulate any such policy due to which the Market Committees and their Secretaries took decisions regarding allotment or cancellation of shops according to their own whims and fancies. In the said circumstances, although the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 was repealed in the year 2006 by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, which came into force with immediate effect, but the aftermath of the illegal acts committed by the Market Committee and its Secretary continued haunting the applications for allotment of shops to the licensees, which is apparent from the above detailed facts of these cases. 26. According to the admitted seniority list of the licensees, the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7699 of 2006, namely, S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers was at serial no. 1 having licence no. 911 of 1987-88; the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 13810 of 2005, namely, M/s Rayeen Brothers was at serial no. 3 having licence no. 933 of 1988-89 the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.6261 of 2006, namely, Hassan Imam was at serial no. 9 having licence no. 1121 of 1990-91 and the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7566 of 2005, namely, M/s Ahmad Mumtaz Ahmad was at serial no. 30 having licence no. 29 of 1994-95; whereas, the name of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 11651 of 2006, namely, Md. 9 having licence no. 1121 of 1990-91 and the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7566 of 2005, namely, M/s Ahmad Mumtaz Ahmad was at serial no. 30 having licence no. 29 of 1994-95; whereas, the name of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 11651 of 2006, namely, Md. Goush Alam Shoaib Alamis not included in the said list although he claims that licence no. 764 of 1978-79 was granted to him by the Secretary of the Market Committee, which was changed/renewed subsequently as licence no. 764 of 1982-83, in support• of which he has produced a receipt and a renewal order. 27. So far the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 11651 of 2006, namely, Md. Goush Alam Shoaib Alam is concerned, admittedly he is holder of licence no. 764/198283 and hence he is even senior to S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers, who is at serial no. 1 of the seniority list, but even then he has not been included in the said list. He has further claimed that he had applied for allotment of a shop before the Secretary of the Committee on 14.6.1988 and 11.1.1989, but there is nothing to show that when his applications remained unheeded and no such allotment was made, he ever raised his grievances in furtherance thereof. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents denied filing of any such application by the said petitioner and had also stated that he had fraudulently put the seal on the said application. This stand of the" respondents is corroborated by the fact that for decades thereafter no step was taken by the petitioner either before the Market Committee or before the Board and only much supsequently on 22.8.2006, he filed an application for allotment of a shop before the Secretary of the Market Committee although in the year 2006 itself the Act had been repealed. This clearly shows that petitioner could validly prove his application dated 22.8.2006 only hence it is quite apparent that he was earlier never serious in his approach with respect to the allotment of any shop much less the shop in question. 28. So far the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006, namely, S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers is concerned, although he is the seniormost licensee according to the seniority list mentioned above and was duly allotted shop no. 28. So far the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006, namely, S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers is concerned, although he is the seniormost licensee according to the seniority list mentioned above and was duly allotted shop no. 58, but subsequently he let out the shop to another person, which fact has been fully proved by respondent authorities and hence he violated the specific provisions of the Act and Hules, due to which his allotment was cancelled. Furthermore, the said petitioner did rot even pay the licence fee and the rent of the shop for more than a year and hence the authorities concerned were well within their jurisdiction to cancel the allotment of shop no. 58 in favour of the said writ petitioner S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers. 29. So far the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7566 of 2005, namely, M/s Md. Ahmad Mumtaz Ahmad is concerned, admittedly. it is not only very junior licensee being at serial no. 30 of the seniority list, but is also a very subsequent applicant for the shop as it filed its application for the shop in the year 2004. Hence the allotment of shop no. 58 in its favour by the Secretary of the Market Committee was ab initio illegal and void and was also violative not only of the provisions of law, but also of the specific decisions of this Court and the directions of the Board and its Managing Director. Furthermore the authorities having realized the fault, they immediately cancelled the allotment, which was also against the order of the Managing Director of the Board in Appeal No. 1 of 2005. By the said order the Board had settled the principle of such allotments, which was binding not only on the Market Committee and its Secretaries but also on the allottees unless it was reversed or modified by the higher authorities. Thus this petitioner neither obtained the order of allotment legally nor has approached this Court with clean hands. In the said circumstances, the cancellation of allotment of shop no. 58 in its favour cannot be held to be illegal and unjustified. 30. So far the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 13810 of 2005, namely, M/s Rayeen Brothers is concerned, he was, admittedly, at serial no. 3 of the seniority list as per its licence no. 933 of 1988-89. In the said circumstances, the cancellation of allotment of shop no. 58 in its favour cannot be held to be illegal and unjustified. 30. So far the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 13810 of 2005, namely, M/s Rayeen Brothers is concerned, he was, admittedly, at serial no. 3 of the seniority list as per its licence no. 933 of 1988-89. Although this petitioner claimed to be the oldest licensee personally doing its business and regularly paying market fees, it failed to substantiate its claim by any material whatsoever that it was trying to get a shop since 1988. It had merely produced application dated 25.7.2005 filed before the Managing Director of the Board, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 7864 of 2005 and within a few months thereafter it had filed its said writ petition, in which respondent-authorities had specifically stated that after shop no. 58 is vacated by M/s Md. Ahmad Mumtaz Ahmad a meeting of the Sub-Committee would be convened for allotment of shop in question as well as other shops and the case of the petitioner and other eligible carididates would be considered and the shop would be given to that person, who would fulfil the criteria as laid down. In the said circumstances the claim of the petitioner of this writ petition does not appear to be genuine and valid. 31. So far the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006, namely, Hassan Imam is concerned, he was, admittedly at serial no. 9 of the seniority list as per his licence no. 1121 of 1990-91. Although this petitioner is not the oldest licensee but is certainly one of the oldest licensees and immediately after the grant of the said licence, he had applied for allotment of a shop on 16.6.1990 and had been doing his fruit business on the verandah of the Market Yard since then, which facts are not denied by respondent-authorities. 32. Comparing the petitioner of C.w.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006 (Hassan Imam) with other writ petitioners, it becomes clear that Md. Goush Alam Shoaib Alam (C.W.J.C. No. 11651 of 2006) was the oldest licensee vide licence no. 764 of 1982-83, but he could prove only his application dated 22.8.2006 for allotment of a shop in the market. area. Similarly petitioner-S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006) was at serial no. 1 in the seniority list having licence no. Goush Alam Shoaib Alam (C.W.J.C. No. 11651 of 2006) was the oldest licensee vide licence no. 764 of 1982-83, but he could prove only his application dated 22.8.2006 for allotment of a shop in the market. area. Similarly petitioner-S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006) was at serial no. 1 in the seniority list having licence no. 911/1987-88 due to which shop no. 58 was allotted to him on 17.12.1999, but his licence and allotment were subsequently cancelled by the authorities due Lo his violation of the provisions of law and the clauses of agreement, which has been fully proved by the authorities. 33. Furthermore, petitioner-M/s Rayeen Brothers (C.W.J.C. No. 13810 of 2005) was at serial no. 3 in the seniority list having licence no. 933 of 1988-89, but he could produce and prove only his application dated 25.7.2005 for allotment of a shop in the market area and the authorities held that the said application and other applications were to be considered according to valid criteria and principle laid down in that regard. However, petitioner-M/s Ahmad Mumtaz Ahmad (C.w.J.C. No. 7566 of 2005) was at serial no. 30 in the seniority list having licence no. 29 of 1994-95 and according to. its own claim, it had applied for allotment of a shop on 10.8.2004. 34. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that although shop no. 58 was allotted to S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006) on his application dated 29.11.1999, but his licence and allotment having been cancelled subsequently by the authorities concerned on valid grounds as found in the above paragraphs, there is no occasion for considering his case for allotment of shop no. 58. 35. Although petitioner-Md. Goush Alam Shoaib Alam (C.W.J.C. No. 11651 of 2006) is the oldest licensee as per his claim bearing licence no. 764 of 1982-83, but he had been unable to prove by any valid material that before 2006, he had ever applied for allotment of shop. Furthermore, even when shop no. 58 was allotted to S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006) on 17.12.1999, he did not raise any objection for consideration of his alleged applications dated 14.6.1988 and 11.1.1989 for allotment of a shop. Furthermore, even when shop no. 58 was allotted to S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006) on 17.12.1999, he did not raise any objection for consideration of his alleged applications dated 14.6.1988 and 11.1.1989 for allotment of a shop. Furthermore, he l1as absolutely failed to prove the said application sand has been able to prove only his application dated 22.8.2006, but by that time the Act had already been repealed. Hence it is quite apparent that he was earlier never interested in allotment of any shop in his favour and jumped into the fray only in the year 2006, merely for the purpose of taking a chance, without any seriousness of pursuit and requirement. 36. Similarly M/s Rayeen Brothers (C.w.J.C. No. 13810 of 2005) did not file any application for allotment of shop after grant of licence no. 933 of 1988-89 in its favour and for the first time filed its application dated 25.7.2005, which clearly showed that he was also earlier not interested for allotment of any shop in its favour and only when after several round of cases filed by Hassan Imam (C.w.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006) there was some chance of allotment of shop no. 58 in favour of Hassan Imam, he jumped into the fray merely for the purpose of taking a chance without any seriousness of pursuit and requirement. 37. The other claimant M/s Md. Ahmad Mumtaz Ahmad (C.W.J.C. No. 7566 of 2005) is a much subsequent licensee having licence no. 29 of 1994-95, but it filed its application for allotment of shop for the first time on 10.8.2004 and the shop in question bearing shop no. 58 was allotted to it on 15.12.2004, but the said allotment was cancelled by the authorities on 16.6.2005 as it was found to be much junior not only amongst the licensees, but also amongst the applicants for allotment of the said shop. Since the shop in question can be allotted only on the basis of seniority amongst the licensees and the applicants, the cancellation of allotment of shop in its favour by the authorities cannot be held to be illegal and unjustified. 38. On the other hand, Hassan Imam (C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006) applied for licence in the year 1990 and was granted licence no. 38. On the other hand, Hassan Imam (C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006) applied for licence in the year 1990 and was granted licence no. 1121 of 1990-91 and immediately thereafter he applied for allotment of shop on 16.6.1990 and had been doing his business on the verandah of the Market Yard since then. These facts are not denied by respondent-authorities. In furtherance thereto, this petitioner had been throughout seriously trying for allotment of a shop and when it was denied he filed C.W.J.C. No. 2535 of 2000, which was permitted to be withdrawn by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.5.2000 with a liberty to him to move before the Managing Director of the Board under Section 38 of the Act. The petitioner moved the said authority within time and the Managing Director of the Board vide order dated 11 .8.2000 rejected his application on the ground that shop no. 58 had already been allotted to M/s S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006). Thereafter, the petitioner again moved this Court vide C.W.J.C.No. 14040 of 2001, but when the counsel for the respondents submitted before the Court that the authorities of the Board were trying to construct and provide more shops and would adjust the petitioner and others, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the said writ petition, which was disposed of on 25.3.2003. From Annexure-8 series of C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006, it also transpires that in view of the order of this Court and the stand taken by the authorities, the Secretary of the Committee decided to allot vacant land to the petitioner to construct his shop and it was approved by the Market Committee on 20.7.2004 and only sanction of the Board was required, but nothing was done by the authorities although in the meantime shop no. 58 had already become vacant due to cancellation of allotment of that shop made earlier in favour of S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006). 39. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the materials on record as discussed above, it is quite apparent that Hassan Imam (C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006) was amongst the top-ten licensees according to the seniority list. 39. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the materials on record as discussed above, it is quite apparent that Hassan Imam (C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006) was amongst the top-ten licensees according to the seniority list. Furthermore, amongst all the writ petitioners, he is the senior most applicant as none of other claimants could prove filing of any application by them prior to 1990. The said writ petitioner, namely, Hassan Imam (C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006) has also been able to prove that he was doing his fruit business in the Market Yard since 1990 and had filed his application for allotment of a shop immediately thereafter on 16.6.1990 and had been pursuing it throughout very vigorously and had not only approached the Managing Director of the Board in that regard, but had also filed writ petitions for the said purpose and his claim had never been rejected rather the matter was merely delayed due to non-compliance of the undertakings given by the authorities before the Court. 40. It has already been held above that allotment of shop no. 58 in favour of S. Zahid Hussain and Brothers (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006) vide order dated 29.11.1999 had been rightly cancelled alongwith licence due to letting out the said shop to others and not being interested in doing his own business in the shop, hence the said shop is vacant for allotment to any competent licensee according to the seniority amongst the licensees and the applicants. Therefore, the authorities must get the said shop vacated if not yet done, expeditiously with in one month from the date of this order. 41. Furthermore, there is no occasion to allot shop no. 58 again to a person, who has never been seriously interested in doing business in the shop although they are old licensees, but tiled application for allotment of shop decades thereafter only when the old claim of Hassan Imam (C.W.J.C. No. 6261 0(2006) was at its final stages. Allotment of shop in favour of such person is bound to result in the same manner, which the authorities were forced to do in case of S. Zahid Hussain and Broth8rs (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006). 42. Allotment of shop in favour of such person is bound to result in the same manner, which the authorities were forced to do in case of S. Zahid Hussain and Broth8rs (C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006). 42. According to the aforesaid criteria of seniority amongst the licensees and applicants as well as the genuineness of the claim and the seriousness of interest shown by the applicants in doing business in the shop in question, the person, who appears to be the fittest amongst the claimants, is undoubtedly Hassan Imam (C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 2006) and hence his said writ petition is allowed and respondent-authorities are directed to allot shop no. 58 in his favour and put him in possession thereof immediately within one month of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 43. In the facts and circumstances discussed above in this order, C.W.J.C. No. 7566 of 2005, C.W.J.C. No. 13810 of 2005, C.W.J.C. No. 6799 of 2006 and C.W.J.C. No. 11651 of 2006 are hereby dismissed. However, in future if any shop is vacated or is constructed, the authorities concerned shall consider the claims of the said petitioners alongwith other applicants for allotment of shop in the light of the principles prescribed above i. e. seniority of licensees amongst the applicants . on a given date.