Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral) Both these petitions pertain to a common subject matter, hence, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioners are Co-operative Societies. Respondents No.1 and 2 constructed/raised Sub Marketing Yard at Kharapathar. The booths and shops raised therein were meant for allotment to the categories as enshrined in Annexure R-1. The prescription of a quota for the categories enumerated in Annexure R-1, is in the manner as extracted hereinafter:- “1. Local Fruits & Vegetables growers 15% 2. Local Dealers, Traders in Agricultural Produce 50% 3. Co-operative and allied Institutions 10% 4. Scheduled castes 10% 5. Scheduled Tribes 5% 6. Backward castes 10%” The quota fixed or determined therein for allotment of shops/booths constructed in the Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar, to the Co-operative and allied Institutions is 10%. The respondents-board issued an advertisement comprised in Annexure R-2 for eliciting from the eligible/desirous aspirants their respective quotations. On the respondents having received quotations from the aspirants/entities concerned falling in the aforesaid delineated categories qua whom an earmarked quota aforesaid was prescribed, proceeded to in consonance thereto make allotments of booths/shops situated within Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar, respectively in their favour. The petitioners through these writ petitions have challenged the prescription of a quota of 50% for the category of Local Dealers, Traders in Agricultural Produce. Even though, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with much fervour have canvassed before this Court that the aforesaid quota of 50% prescribed in Annexure R-1 for the aforesaid category inconsonance whereof an advertisement was issued by the respondents and allotments of shops/booths existing in Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar were made, is constitutionally bad, inasmuch as it is arbitrary and discriminatory. Nonetheless, there exist no apposite averment in the pleadings portraying the fact that the quota of 50% earmarked for local dealers, traders in agricultural produce as the respondents No.3 to 12 are, is per se discriminatory and arbitrary, inasmuch as the fixation or earmarking of a quota of 50% for the local dealers, traders in agricultural produce, is in derogation to or militative of the spirit of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1969 and the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural and Horticultural Produce Marketing (Development) Act, or that the creation of the category of local dealers, traders in Agricultural Produce qua whom a 50% quota has been fixed or determined under Annexure R-1 for allotment of shops/booths situated within Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar demonstrably constitutes an unreasonable classified category not anvilled upon any intelligible differentia having any nexus with the object to be achieved by the statutes aforesaid. Rather, it appears that the earmarking of a quota of 50% to the local dealers, traders in agricultural produce by the respondents-board is grooved in and motivated by the fact that the said category while possessing experience in dealing with/selling horticultural and agricultural produce would ensure that the produce of the local farmers, as brought to the Sub Marketing yard wherein the booths/shops stand allotted to them, fetch a remunerative or handsome price. In case, the experience of the local dealers, traders in agricultural produce, hence, is the implicit ground revered by the competent authority while fixing a quota of 50% for them for allotment of booths/shops within the Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar, consequently, the said factum cannot at all be construed to render the fixation or earmarking or determination of a quota of 50% for local dealers, traders in agricultural produce, for allotment of shops/booths therein, to be ridden with the vice or taint of discrimination or arbitrariness, hence, warranting its being quashed and set aside. Rather it has to be held that the classification of or categorization of local dealers, traders in agricultural produce as a specific entity in Annexure R-1 besides determination of a quota of 50% in its favour for allotment of shops/booths in Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar, hence, is a reasonable classification anvilled or anchored upon an intelligible differentia having a nexus with the salutary object referred to hereinabove. Consequently, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is interdicted to contend before this Court that the quota of 50% as earmarked or determined by Annexure R-1 in favour of local dealers, traders in agricultural produce for theirs hence being entitled to inconsonance thereto claim allotment of shops/booths within Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar, is ridden with any vice or taint necessitating any interference by this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with much fervour argued before this Court that the respondents Nos. 3 to 12, who belong to the category of local dealers, traders in agricultural produce qua whom 50% quota has been determined under Annexure R-1 for allotment of shops/booths within Sub Marking Yard, Kharapathar did not fulfill the necessary criteria for construing them to be falling within the ambit of the said category inasmuch as some of them do not belong to either Kotkhai and Jubbal, besides shops/booths to some of them stand already allotted elsewhere which operates as a proscription against their being allotted shops/booths in Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar. Consequently, he urges that when respondents No.3 to 12 do not fall in the category of local dealers, traders in agricultural produce, hence, allotment of shops or booths to them in Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar necessitates interference, inasmuch as allotment of booths/shops made in their favour being liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while addressing the said arguments has remained wholly oblivious to the factum of the definition of local dealers, traders in agricultural produce as stand defined in Clause -2 of Annexure R-2, which stand extracted hereinafter:- “2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while addressing the said arguments has remained wholly oblivious to the factum of the definition of local dealers, traders in agricultural produce as stand defined in Clause -2 of Annexure R-2, which stand extracted hereinafter:- “2. Category: Local dealers, traders in fruits and vegetables:- (i) the applicant shall be registered with the Agricultural Produce Market Society, Shimla and Kinnaur as dealer/trader in fruits and vegetables or dealing in the pursuit of sale of fruits and vegetables within Jubbal and Kotkhai Tehsil.” With a portrayal therein of a person being construable to be falling in the category of local dealers, traders in agricultural produce in the event of his having come to be registered with the Agricultural Produce Market Society , Shimla or Kinnaur as a dealer, trader in agricultural produce or his undertaking or being engaged in the pursuit of sale of vegetables and fruits within the limits of Jubbal and Kotkhai Tehsil, as such, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to portray in the writ petitions the trite fact of the allottees, who have been arrayed as respondents No.3 to 12 being neither registered with the Agricultural Produce Market Society, Shimla or Kinnaur as dealers, traders in agricultural produce nor theirs being engaged in the business/pursuit of sale of fruits and vegetables within Jubbal or Kotkhai, Tehsil. In the face of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners having omitted to disclose or divulge in the writ petition the fact that in the face of the allottees, who have been arrayed as respondents No.3 to 12, hence, having not acquired the necessary eligibility criteria to render hence unvindicable the allotments of shops/booths, in their favour by the respondents No.1 and 2, existing in the Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar. In sequel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot contend before this Court that respondents No.3 to 12 while not having achieved or satiated the essential eligibility criteria as enshrined in Clause-2 of Annexure R-2 appended with CWP No.6978 of 2012, were rendered ineligible to participate in the process of allotment of shops/booths within the Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar, nor also the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner can contend that hence the allotment of shops/booths in their favour is liable to be quashed and set aside. Rather, it has to be held that the respondents had made allotments of shops/booths existing in Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar in favour of the allottees only on their having drawn satisfaction qua their entitlement to it/them in all respects. Moreover, the eligibility criteria omitting to oust or debar the allottees arrayed as respondents No.3 to 12 from participating in the process of allotments of shops/booths in Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar, in the event of theirs having come to be previously allotted shops/booths elsewhere, does obviously strip the vigour of the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that given the factum of some of the allottees having been allotted shops/booths elsewhere, theirs being hence interdicted to claim allotment of shops/booths in Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar. 4. The petitioners belong to the category of Co-operative Societies, qua whom a 10% quota has been earmarked. The respondent No.2 proceeded to allot shops/booths in Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar inconsonance with the prescription of a quota in their favour as displayed in Annexure R-1, to “Himkiran Cooperative Society Kiana, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla” and “The Hill Queen Fruit Growing-cum-Marketing Cooperative Society, Praunthi, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P.” Even though, the allotment of shops/booths to the aforesaid Cooperative Societies was assailable on all available grounds at the instance of the petitioners, rather lamentably the petitioners have omitted to challenge the allotment of shops to the aforesaid Cooperative Societies in the Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar. Consequently, with no claim having been staked by the petitioners to the shops/booths allotted to the aforesaid co-operative societies in Sub Marketing Yard, Kharapathar, as such, the allotment of shops/booths to the aforesaid cooperative societies cannot be interfered with by this Court. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these writ petitions, as such, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Stay orders, if any, granted in favour of the petitioners, are also vacated. All pending applications also stand disposed of.