JUDGMENT : Lisa Gill, J. The petitioner in this case has impugned the orders dated 28.07.2010 and 29.03.2012 passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula and Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Agriculture Department, respectively, whereby its claim for allotment of a plot/shop in the New Grain and Vegetable Market at Julana, District Jind, has been declined. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the firm had applied for allotment of the plot/shop in the New Combined Grains and Vegetables Market at Julana, when the Market Committee, Julana had invited applications on 22.07.2009 from the old licencees to allot the plots on preferential basis to Category-II licensee working in the old notified market yard, which was to be de-notified. The Market Committee, Julana passed an order dated 19.12.2009 vide which various firms including the petitioner firm were declared ineligible for the allotment of plot on reserved price. The petitioner's case was rejected on the ground that it did not fulfill the condition of having paid the market fee for the last two years as envisaged in Rule 3(1)(iv) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). 3. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.07.2010 by Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula and the revision was filed by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Agriculture Department. 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner firm does not fulfill the eligibility conditions as envisaged in Rule 3(1) of the Rules. Rule 3(1) (iii) and (iv) of the Rules read as under:- "(i) All immovable properties in the Market developed by the Board or Market Committees shall be disposed of by way of allotment/transfer/open auction in accordance with the provisions of these rules. Rule 3(1) (iii) and (iv) of the Rules read as under:- "(i) All immovable properties in the Market developed by the Board or Market Committees shall be disposed of by way of allotment/transfer/open auction in accordance with the provisions of these rules. The shop plots will be allotted to the old licensees of category (ii) i.e. (Katcha Arhityas) of old market which is to be de-notified, resulting in displacement of such licensed dealers of category (ii), on free hold basis, for conducting the business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce in the new markets, on the following terms and conditions, namely, x x x x x (iii) only those category (ii) licensees shall be eligible for allotment of plots who had valid license of four years on the date fixed for inviting applications for draw of lots: (iv) Such licensees must have paid market fee of at least Rs. 5000/- annually for the last two years. Provided that in the case of a category (ii) licensee who does not pay market fee himself, his annul turnover during the last two years should be at least rupees two lakh fifty thousand." It has come on record that the market fee deposited by the petitioner and the turn over of the petitioner is nil for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similar circumstanced firms/licensees have been granted the benefit of allotment of plot/shop at the reserved price and the authorities singled out the petitioner in not allotting the plot to it. This action is stated to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is clear that the rationale and the reason for allotment of plot/shop to the old license fees at reserve price is to grant the benefit to genuine and bonafide commission agent/licensees. It is due to this reason that the requirement of market fees and turn over has been introduced in the eligibility criteria in order to sift the genuine traders, likely to be affected by de notification of the mandi, from the persons who have no business in the mandi and would, therefore, not be affected. It is due to this reason that the requirement of market fees and turn over has been introduced in the eligibility criteria in order to sift the genuine traders, likely to be affected by de notification of the mandi, from the persons who have no business in the mandi and would, therefore, not be affected. The said condition of market fee/turnover is laid down to check such unscrupulous elements who have no business in the mandi to be de-notified and just want to take the undue advantage of the rehabilitation policy. 7. The contention of the petitioner that the rejection of its claim of allotment of the plot is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is liable to be rejected. It is a settled position of law that there cannot be a concept of negative equality. In case any benefit is granted wrongly by the authorities de-hors the provisions of law/rules, the same cannot vest the petitioner with any right in its favour. In this respect, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgment titled Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. President, Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 604, has held that the concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such cases. The party claiming equality has to first establish a legal right in its favour. The relevant extract of the above judgment is reproduced as hereunder:- "So far as the allotment to non-eligible societies is concerned even if it is accepted, though specifically denied by the Authority, to be true that does not confer any right on the appellant. Two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. In such matters, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the appellant cannot strengthen its case. It has to establish strength of its case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality." 9. Thus, simply holding a valid license without conducting any business in the Mandi does not entitle the petitioner for allotment of a plot/shop on a preferential basis at the reserve price as per the rules. 10. There is no substance in the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. No interference is called for by this court, hence this writ petition is dismissed.