Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1545 (MP)

Thok Sabji Vikreta Kalyan Sangh v. State of M. P.

2014-11-27

A.M.KHANWILKAR, SANJAYYADAV

body2014
ORDER 1. This petition, though filed as Public Interest Litigation, is essentially a petition in representative capacity on behalf of the members of the petitioner-Association. The Association has 215 traders as its members. The grievance in this petition is essentially about the procedure followed by the respondent/Mandi in allotment of land in its market yard. 2. This very petitioner had filed writ petition challenging the validity of the provisions of rule 3(7) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi (Allotment of Land and Structures) Rules, 2009 by way of Writ Petition No.10244/2010. Traders in the locality had independently filed Writ Petition No.3957/2010, Writ Petition No.4880/2010, Writ Petition No.4890/2010 and Writ Petition No.6355/2010. All these petitions came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 1.3.2012. The Division Bench rejected the challenge to rule 3(7) on all counts. 3. Notably, the earlier matters proceeded on admitted fact that the State Government, by issuing notification on 9.11.2000 under section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, “for the first time established a new market yard” for fruit and vegetable traders having 56 acres of land at Karond in Bhopal. In view of this indisputable fact the procedure to be followed by the respondent/Mandi for allotment of land or structure in the market yard area could be only under rule 3(7)(b) of the Rules. 4. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that, in the auction process, the plots to be alloted should have been offered first to the members of the petitioner Association, who had existing licence and were forced to shift from the old market area to new market area. If it was a case of transfer of market yard, this argument would have been valid -- as that is the procedure prescribed under rule 3(7)(a) of the Rules. The dispensation provided for allotment of land or structure in the market yard area which is a newly established market yard for the first time is posited under rule 3(7)(b). Both these mechanisms are mutually exclusive. The last part of rule 3(7)(a), therefore, cannot be read into the mechanism specified for allotment of land and structure in a newly established market yard. That must be governed by rule 3(7)(b) only. 5. Both these mechanisms are mutually exclusive. The last part of rule 3(7)(a), therefore, cannot be read into the mechanism specified for allotment of land and structure in a newly established market yard. That must be governed by rule 3(7)(b) only. 5. In our opinion, the argument of the petitioner is replete with confusion that it was a case of shifting or transfer of market yard, as the petitioners have been forced to shift from their original location to newly established market yard. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner-Association were trading in an area, which was not so notified under the Act of 1972 and, therefore, it will not be a case of transfer of market yard as such. In any case, it is not open to assume a fact which is contrary to the Notification issued in exercise of section 3 of the Act of 1972, which in no uncertain terms mentions that for the first time new market yard for fruit and vegetable traders is being set up. Once this position is indisputable, the argument of the petitioner that it is a case of transfer of market yard will have to be rejected. Moreover, the grievance now made could have been agitated even in the earlier round of litigation. As a matter of fact, this shade of argument of the petitioner has been considered and negatived, as can be discerned from the discussion in Paragraphs No.10 to 12 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1.3.2012. 6. Notably, the petitioner in spite of having challenged the said decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, eventually, did not press that special leave petition being S.L.P. (Civil) No.10129/2012 and invited the following order : “Learned counsel for the rival parties are agreed to the disposal of the instant petition with liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate applications for allotment of plots. In case such applications are moved by the members of the petitioner Sangh, then the same shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the existing provisions. Needless to say that the corporation will cooperate and the allotments shall be made by shifting of the licences to the notified Mandi area by exclusively considering the applicants licences. The special leave petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above”. (Emphasis supplied) 7. Needless to say that the corporation will cooperate and the allotments shall be made by shifting of the licences to the notified Mandi area by exclusively considering the applicants licences. The special leave petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above”. (Emphasis supplied) 7. The order passed by the Supreme Court reinforces that the allotment of land or structure in the Mandi area of respondent/Mandi, which has been newly established will have to be taken forward in accordance with the “existing provisions”. That means rule 3(7)(b). 8. Emphasis, however, was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the expression “exclusively considering the applicants licences”. That, in our opinion, does not mean that the Supreme Court has directed the respondent/Mandi to consider the case of the petitioner with reference to the mechanism provided in rule 3(7)(a), which applies to shifting of market yard. 9. Pertinently, it is mentioned in the reply affidavit filed by the respondent/Mandi that the members of the petitioner Association have already participated in the auction process. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has disputed that factual position across the Bar, but the petitioner Association has not filed any rejoinder to refute the statement so made by the respondent/Mandi in the reply affidavit filed before this Court. 10. In any case, the claim of the members of the petitioner Association will have to be considered in the context of rule 3(7)(b) of the Rules. Thus understood, the question of conducting auction only for the existing licencee traders those are affected by the establishment of respondent/Mandi, cannot be countenanced. For, that may be necessary only if it was a case of transfer of market yard and thus, governed by the procedure prescribed in rule 3(7)(a) of the Rules. 11. It is also indisputable that the auction process has already been set in motion by giving public notice. The members of the petitioner Association were free to participate in the said auction process. Those who have participated, the respondent/Mandi would be obliged to consider their applications in accordance with the procedure prescribed in rule 3(7)(b) of the Rules. The last date of bid was 13.11.2014. In the auction process, the Mandi has already collected an amount of around Rs.31 crores from the participants. Those who have participated, the respondent/Mandi would be obliged to consider their applications in accordance with the procedure prescribed in rule 3(7)(b) of the Rules. The last date of bid was 13.11.2014. In the auction process, the Mandi has already collected an amount of around Rs.31 crores from the participants. Even for that reason, the matter cannot brook any further delay - as it would be affecting the rights of those who have invested in the auction process with a sanguine hope of getting allotment of land or structure in the respondent/Mandi area. 12. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. .............