JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:- This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos.8576 of 2010 and 13710 of 2010. These writ petitions have been filed by 158 petitioners, who are carrying on the business of timber merchants on both sides of Jagadhri- Chhachhrauli Road. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are carrying on the business on both sides of the aforesaid road after constructing their shops and obtaining Sales Tax licences since a long time. In the year 2008, a Public Interest Litigation (C.W.P. No.3877 of 2008) titled as ‘Saroj Bala and others Vs. State of Haryana and others’ was filed by the local residents of Jagadhri alleging therein that the timber market established on both sides of Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli Road is illegal and unauthorized and the same is functioning in contravention of the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) [hereinafter referred to as `the Act’] , which is not only causing great nuisance to the residents of the local area but also causing environmental pollution, congestion and traffic hazard, therefore, the same should be directed to be shifted to a proper market to be established by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board under the Act. 3. In the said writ petition, the respondent-Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board filed reply stating therein that the Board had drawn up a comprehensive plan to establish a timber market over a piece of land measuring 24 Acres 5 Kanals 3 Marlas situated in village Manakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, at an estimated cost of Rs.6,89,60,000/- and the development work of establishing the said market was in progress and was likely to be completed up to July, 2009. It was stated that as soon as the said timber market is established, the persons doing their timber business on Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli Road will be shifted to the new location. 4. Vide order dated February 02, 2009, the said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court while issuing the following directions:- “It was argued by learned counsel for the respondents that process of establishing a proper timber market has also been initiated and is currently at an advanced stage and that the market should be commissioned by July, 2009. If that be so, we see no reason why the market cannot be shifted to its new location which is duly notified and regulated under the Act by December 2009. The Deputy Commissioner has already made a statement extracted above that once the market is established all those carrying on business in the sale and purchase of the timber at the present location shall be directed to shift to the new market place. In that view of the matter, we see no reason why these proceedings should continue to remain pending with us. The same can in our opinion be disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to expedite the establishment of the Mandi and to make allotment of the sites in the same in accordance with the rules and the norms prescribed for the purpose to all those who are carrying on business in the sale and purchase of timber at the present location so that they could as and when directed by the administration shift to the new place. The State Government and the District Administration shall also expedite the process by shifting of the market to the new location to ensure that the same is completed by December, 2009. This writ petition is with the above directions disposed of. No costs.” (Emphasis added) 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, a new timber market was developed and established on the aforesaid area of Jagadhri- Chhachhrauli Road. According to the aforesaid directions, the allotment in the newly established timber market was to be made in accordance with the rules and norms prescribed under the Act. 6. In the year 2010, the respondent-Board issued a public notice in various newspapers for auctioning of the plots/sites in the New Timber Market, Manakpur-II, Jagadhri, which was to be conducted on 11.05.2010. A total 113 plots of various sizes were to be put for public auction. Immediately, the petitioners in both the writ petitions challenged the said auction by filing the present two writ petitions. It has been contended by them that the respondent-Board, without framing a viable policy of accommodating/allotting the plots to the petitioners at a reasonable price, who, as per the aforesaid directions of this Court, are to be shifted from their present place of business to the new market, are auctioning the plots/sites in the new market. It has been contended by them that the respondent-Board, without framing a viable policy of accommodating/allotting the plots to the petitioners at a reasonable price, who, as per the aforesaid directions of this Court, are to be shifted from their present place of business to the new market, are auctioning the plots/sites in the new market. It is the case of the petitioners that the said auction is in contravention of the directions given by this Court. It was clearly directed by this Court that the respondents would expedite the establishment of the timber market and make the allotment of the sites to those persons working at the said timber market, in accordance with the rules and norms prescribed for the purpose, who are carrying on business in the sale and purchase of timber at the present location so that they could, as and when directed by the Administration, shift to the new place. It has also been alleged that a short notice was given for the auction which would deprive many persons who have been doing their business of timber on Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli Road since long, as they will not be able to arrange the money in order to participate in the auction. It has been further alleged that the respondents have wrongly carved out big plots which are not viable and if in the New Timber Market small plots are carved out, then almost all the persons, who are dealing in the business of timber on Jagadhri- Chhachhrauli Road, could have been accommodated. It has been further stated that if all the plots were put to open auction, then the petitioners, who are petty timber merchants, would not be able to compete with the big timber merchants/dealers, who are financially sound, and the open competition will completely diminish the chances of the petitioners to purchase the plots in open auction. On these averments, the petitioners prayed for quashing of the impugned auction to be held on 11.05.2010 and directing the respondents to allot the plots to the petitioners in the New Timber Market at a reasonable price as they have to be dislocated from their present place of working. 7. On these averments, the petitioners prayed for quashing of the impugned auction to be held on 11.05.2010 and directing the respondents to allot the plots to the petitioners in the New Timber Market at a reasonable price as they have to be dislocated from their present place of working. 7. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6, it has not been disputed that the petitioners are dealing with the business of purchase of timber (eucalyptus and poplar trees) on Jagadhri- Chhachhrauli Road, but they are doing business without obtaining any licence under the Act, and are paying no market fees under the Act for the sale and purchase of the timber. It has been stated that prior to the year 2006 the timber was not included in the Schedule of the Act as an agriculture produce. Only vide notification dated 7.8.2006, ‘Timber and Fire-wood’ was added at Item No.111 in the Schedule as agricultural produce. The said Schedule was again amended vide notification dated 5.9.2007 and in place of ‘Timber and Fire-wood’, “eucalyptus and poplar trees” were included in the Schedule except fire wood of the length of 5 cm to 45 cm girth. Again the Schedule was amended vide notification dated 4.3.2008 and the word ‘Fire-wood’ was totally excluded and only two trees, namely, eucalyptus and poplar remained in the Schedule as agricultural produce. Under the Act, the sale and purchase of these two trees in the notified Marketing area is liable to the market fee @ 2% on the said items. It has been stated that in spite of the notice given to all such persons through the petitioners’ Association, they neither obtained any licence under the Act nor paid any market fee. It has been further averred that as per Rule 3(3) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2000’) all the sites/shops have to be sold through open auction where no de-notification of the old mandi is involved, except allotment to identified public utilities, i.e. Post Office, Telephone Exchange, Water Works, Public Sector Undertakings, Government Agencies and Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, dealing in Agricultural produce or inputs, Nationalized/Cooperative banks and Dharamshala etc. It has been stated that the timber market which is illegally going on at Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli Road was never notified as market under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the question of de-notifying it does not arise. It has been stated that since there is no de-notification of the old market, then as per Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 2000 all the plots have to be sold in open auction. Therefore, the Board has decided to sell the plots in the new market in public auction with fair and reasonable opportunity to all the petitioners to purchase the same in open auction. It has been submitted that the respondent-Board has no policy to allot the plots on reserve price in the newly established timber market, which has been established without denotifying any other earlier market. It has been stated that as per the directions given by this Court, the allotment of the sites in the new market was to be made in accordance with the rules and norms prescribed for the purpose to all the persons who are carrying on their business in the sale of timber in the present location. However, under the Rules of 2000, only such old licensees of category-II are entitled for allotment of plots on reserve price who are carrying on their business from the old Mandi to be denotified and fulfill the other conditions also. In the present petitions, the petitioners are neither the licensees of category-II nor fulfill the other conditions for allotment, therefore, they cannot claim allotment on reserve price under the rules and policy as applicable. 8. While issuing notice of motion on 11.5.2010, though no stay of auction was granted, but it was ordered that the members of the petitioners shall not be vacated unless due provision is made in the manner directed by Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. 9. The auction had taken place on 11.5.2010. Out of 113 plots, 51 plots meant for shops and 8 plots meant for booth have been sold in open auction. 10. 9. The auction had taken place on 11.5.2010. Out of 113 plots, 51 plots meant for shops and 8 plots meant for booth have been sold in open auction. 10. During the course of hearing, on 17.10.2012, the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula was directed to file an affidavit indicating therein as to why the directions given by this Court vide judgment dated 2.2.2009 have not been complied with and to explain as to how many plots are lying vacant in the said Market. In pursuance of the said directions, the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula filed the affidavit dated 10.12.2012 stating therein that in pursuance of the directions dated 17.10.2012 given by this Court, the Board had considered the issue of allotment of plots to existing traders after development of Timber Market, Manakpur, as per rules framed for that purpose, i.e., the Rules of 2000. Under the Rules, the allotment of the plots can be made either as a preferential allotment on a concessional rate to eligible old licensees or by open auction. The petitioners, who are carrying on business in timber market in question, are not entitled to preferential allotment on concessional rate as per the Rules of 2000 on following grounds:- “(i) The existing market in question is not notified as a principal market yard/sub market yard; (ii) That the petitioners in the present writ petition have not applied for licenses of category-II; (iii) That the petitioners in the present writ petition have not deposited any market fee as required under Section 23 of the Act despite notice dated 30.8.2006 issued by the Market Committee, Jagadhri.” 11. It has been stated that in the written statement filed by the Marketing Board and the Market Committee, Jagadhri, no impression was given that the traders of existing timber market on Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli road would be allotted plots on preferential basis on concessional rate. Even the Deputy Commissioner in his written statement stated that the plots would be allotted in open auction to the interested persons dealing in the business of timber as soon as development work will be completed. Even the Deputy Commissioner in his written statement stated that the plots would be allotted in open auction to the interested persons dealing in the business of timber as soon as development work will be completed. However, it has been stated that the Marketing Board has framed a policy vide Circular No.179 dated 25.4.2012 which provides as follows:- “If open space/private platform is not available in front of booths but space/private platform of Market Committee is available elsewhere, the Market Committee shall create a designated rental platform if space is available in the mandi. Such designated rental platform shall be used for allowing booth holders who do not have open space/ individual platform in front of their booths or licensees who could not get a shop in auction or licensees who are not eligible for getting shops on reserve price by levying user charges/rent which shall be fixed by the Board as per PWD (B&R) norms. However, such licensees will not be allowed to raise any structure whatsoever on the designated space. Such designated space shall be given only per season or per year as applicable (such as in Sabzi Mandi) and shall be changed every year.” 12. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that the Marketing Board and the Market Committee, Jagadhri, will consider the claim of those traders in existing timber market, including the petitioners, who are unable to procure a plot in open auction, as per the aforesaid Circular and to provide a business place in Timber Market, Manakpur to persons carrying on business as Katcha Arhtiya. 13. During the course of hearing of the writ petitions, the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, who was present in the Court on 13.12.2012, was directed to file additional affidavit framing some guidelines/policies. 13. During the course of hearing of the writ petitions, the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, who was present in the Court on 13.12.2012, was directed to file additional affidavit framing some guidelines/policies. In pursuance of the said directions, an additional affidavit has been filed stating therein that the matter has been re-considered by the Marketing Board in its meeting held on 11.1.2013 and it has been decided that the Marketing Board will provide designated rental platforms to all such persons who are interested to carry on the business by taking a licence of katcha arhtiya in market yard established by a Market Committee, subject to the following conditions:- “(i) The space for designated rental platform shall be limited to such area as would be available in a market yard in view of the requirement of space for other purposes like common platform, parking and other public utility services. (ii) No construction shall be allowed on designated rental platform. (iii) Preference shall be given to old licensees and booth holders to avail the facility of designated rental platform. (iv) That licensees who have other premises in the market yard, shall not be entitled to retain the designated rental platform. (v) The licensee who failed to show any turnover of his business regularly for two years, shall not be entitled to retain the designated rental platform. (vi) Any person whose licence is suspended/cancelled shall also not be entitled to retain the designated rental platform. (vii) The rent on the platform so allotted to the licensees shall be applicable as per PWD norms for commercial areas. (viii) Such designated space shall be given only per season or per year as applicable such as in subzi mandi and shall be changed every year.” 14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents-Marketing Board, on instructions, has agreed to delete condition No. (viii). 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents in gross violation of the order dated February 02, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court have auctioned the shops/sites in the newly established timber market at Manakpur-II, Jagadhri without making preferential allotment to the petitioners at reserve price, who are doing the timber business from last so many years on Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli Road. According to the learned counsel, the direction of this Court was clear that after the development of the new timber market, all the petitioners will be shifted to the new market and till then the petitioners will carry on business at the old location. The learned counsel further argued that the offer given by the Marketing Board for allotment of the designated rental platforms for carrying on their business at the new timber market will not help the petitioners as most of them are having no licence under the Act and also paying no market fees under the Act. Therefore, they will not be able to get such sites on rental basis in view of the conditions stipulated by the respondents for allotment of such designated rental platforms. He argued that keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are dealing with the timber business since long at the present site, a reasonable criteria should be fixed for allotting the workable space either on permanent basis or on rental basis in the new timber market. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Marketing Board argued that the respondent-Board has not violated any directions of this Court while auctioning the plots/sites in the new timber market and the petitioners, as a matter of right, are not entitled for allotment of shops/sites in the new timber market under the existing rules and regulations because the place from where they are working is not the denotified market. Only in that situation the licensees of Category-II are entitled for allotment of plots at reserve price in the newly established market. The learned counsel further argued that the respondent-Board is ready to provide designated rental platforms to all the petitioners in terms of Circular No.179 dated 25.4.2012 and the subsequent decision taken in the Board’s meeting on 11.1.2013 on reasonable conditions. 17. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 17. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. On perusal of the order dated February 02, 2009 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, it is clear that the respondent-Board and Market Committee, Jagadhri were directed to expedite the establishment of the new timber market and to make allotment of the sites in the same, in accordance with the rules and the norms prescribed for the purpose to those persons who are carrying on business in the sale and purchase of timber on Jagadhri Chhachhrauli Road so that they could as and when directed by the administration, shift to the new place. There was no direction that all those carrying on business of timber at Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli Road should be allotted the plots/sites in the new timber market on preferential basis at reserve price. The allotment was made to such persons in accordance with the rules and the norms prescribed for the purpose. It is further clear from the aforesaid order that when the matter was pending before this Court, no assurance was given by the respondent-Board and the Market Committee, Jagadhri to allot plots to the petitioners on preferential basis in the new market at reserve price. The only assurance given was that the new timber market would be established within the stipulated period and as soon as the timber market is established the market existing at the Jagadhri- Chhachhrauli Road would be shifted to its new location. It is also undisputed position that the petitioners are doing their business in timber from the last 10-15 years on both sides of Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli Road. When the petitioners started their business, at that time, timber was not included in the Schedule of the Act as an agriculture produce. It is from 2006 onwards that the “Timber and Fire-wood” were included in the list of agriculture produce which was later on modified and now only “eucalyptus and poplar” trees are the agriculture produce under the Act and their sale and purchase in the notified market area is leviable to the market fee @ 2%. Undisputedly, all the petitioners have not obtained any licence under the Act while dealing in sale and purchase of the said agriculture produce nor they are paying market fees under the said Act. Undisputedly, all the petitioners have not obtained any licence under the Act while dealing in sale and purchase of the said agriculture produce nor they are paying market fees under the said Act. It is also undisputed position that the timber market on Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli Road was not notified as a principal market yard or sub market yard under the Act by the respondents. Now the question arises is whether such persons, who are working in the said market, are entitled for preferential allotment on a reserve price in the newly established timber market. The Rules of 2000 have been framed by the respondent-Marketing Board for sale of shops/sites in the market established by the Board. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 provides that all the shops/sites and plots in the new market, where the issue of de-notification of the old market is not involved, shall be sold through open auction. Only in case of establishing a new market in place of old de-notified market, the shops/sites are allotted on preferential basis on reserve price to the licensees of Category-II on fulfilling certain conditions. The petitioners are having no licence of Category-II under the Act. The place where they are working is not a de-notified market. Therefore, the issue of preferential allotment to the persons on reserved price, who are working in a place, which is not a denotified market, does not arise. In the present case, certain persons, including the petitioners, were doing the timber business on Jagadhri- Chhachhrauli Road which was not a duly established market under the Act. Even without obtaining the licences from the competent authority under the Act they are dealing in agriculture produce. In a public interest litigation, such persons were ordered to be shifted to the newly established timber market as they were causing traffic hazard on both sides of Jagadhri- Chhachhrauli Road, and further directed that the shops/sites be allotted to them in accordance with the rules and prescribed norms for the purpose. Since none of the petitioners is licensee of Category-II, they were not entitled for preferential allotment on reserve price under the Rules of 2000. Therefore, the respondents were justified in not allotting plots to them under the said rules on preferential basis at reserve price. Since none of the petitioners is licensee of Category-II, they were not entitled for preferential allotment on reserve price under the Rules of 2000. Therefore, the respondents were justified in not allotting plots to them under the said rules on preferential basis at reserve price. The plots in the new market were put to auction and every person, including the petitioners, was provided equal opportunity to purchase the plot at market rate. However, only 50% plots were sold in open auction. 18. During the pendency of this petition, the respondent-Board has framed a policy to provide a place of business on rental basis to certain persons who are dealing in the business of agriculture produce and who could not get a shop in auction or are licensees and are not eligible for getting shops on reserve price. In the additional affidavit filed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, it has been stated that on reconsidering the issue the Board will provide designated rental platforms to all such persons who are interested in carrying on the business in the new market by taking a licence of katcha arhtiya, subject to certain conditions. In our view, the Board has given a reasonable offer to the petitioners to provide a space for doing their business of timber in the new market on designated rental platform. 19. We have perused all the conditions prescribed in the affidavit dated 12.2.2013. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board has already agreed that condition No. (viii) will be deleted. We think that condition No. (ii), which provides that no construction shall be allowed on designated rental platform, requires certain modifications and the persons, who have been allotted such designated rental platforms, be permitted to raise a small temporary construction to have a place of sitting so that they may do their business. The other conditions appear to be reasonable. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that the respondent-Board and the Market Committee, Jagadhri will consider all those applications made by the timber traders of Jagadhri for the purpose of granting a licence of katcha arhtiya and providing them a rental platform to enable them to conduct their business in Timber Market, Manakpur. The preference shall be given to genuine existing timber traders at Jagadhri for this purpose. The preference shall be given to genuine existing timber traders at Jagadhri for this purpose. It has also been stated that the Market Committee, Jagadhri will identify genuine timber traders by way of examining relevant Sales Tax details or Municipal Tax details or relevant licence from Forest Department, if any, and/or spot inspection of business conducted, as necessary. In our opinion, the aforesaid offer given by the respondent-Marketing Board for allotment of sites on designated rental platform is reasonable and the same is sufficient compliance of the earlier directions issued by this Court. 20. Accordingly, we dispose of these writ petitions with the direction that in case the petitioners file application for allotment of the designated rental platforms, as per the aforesaid conditions, the respondent- Marketing Board will consider their claim, in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------