IMPORTANT POINT
When a market yard is shifted from old congested place to a new site in Punjab, the licencees working in the old market yard are not entitled to have new sites in the new market yard as a matter of right by virtue of their being earlier in business but they have also to compete with the general public in open auction for acquiring land in the new market yard. This does not violate any statutory or fundamental right of any of the licensees.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India--Articles 14, 19(1)(i)(g), 21, 31 and 136--Constitutional validity--Punjab Agricultural Markets Act, 1961--Sections 6, 7 & 8--Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1962- Rule 24--Shifting of old Mandi to a new place in Jagraon, Ludhiana and Fazilka by notification under the Act & Rules--Applications made by Licencees in old Mandi for allotment of alternative sites in new Mandis on no profit no loss--Rejected--Directed to compete with general public in open auction of sites in New Mandis--No effect on licences by shifting of Mandi -Whether said rejection was in violation of fundamental rights of petitioners u/Arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 31 of Constitution? (No).
       Held : The scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder show that shifting of the Mandi from one place to another without providing for an alternative site or a shop to a licenced dealer, cannot violate any statutory or fundamental right of any of the licensees. (Para 16)
       As long as the licenced dealers continue to hold valid licences for a notified area then, irrespective of the locations of their shops or offices, they are entitled to do their business, even if they do not have shops within the Mandi. This being so, the question of appellants fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution of India being violated do not arise. (Para 19)
       The sale of plots by public auction is a judicious method for providing sites/plots and gives an equal opportunity to all sections of public who may be interested in carrying out trade for the purchase and sale of agricultural produce including the appellants or other licensees who had already been carrying on such trade or business in the old Mandies. (Para 20)
       Held finally : The High Court was therefore, right in concluding that neither the provisions of Sections 7 or 8 of the Act nor the restrictions imposed by the impugned Notification violated the fundamental rights contained in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and that the restrictions imposed were reasonable. (Para 24)
       (ii) Constitution of India--Art. 136 -Appeal to Supreme Court by special leave--Appellants not disclosing full facts to secure a favourable order by concealment--Appeals dismissed--Whether heavy costs he imposed on appellants and in favour of State ? (Yes). (Paras 25 & 26)

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-Leave granted.

2. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is that when a market yard is shifted from one site to another whether the licensees working in the old market yard, are entitled to have new sites in the new market yard, as a matter of right by virtue of their being earlier in business or whether they have also to compete with the general public in open auction for acquiring land in the new market yard.

3. The aforesaid question of law is common in all the present appeals. Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10997 of 1995 and 11139 of 1995 pertain to the market in Jagraon, appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9992 of 1995 relates to Ludhiana and the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24712 of 1995 is with regard to Fazilka. For the purpose of deciding the point in issue, it is sufficient to refer to the facts pertaining to Jagraon only, as the facts regarding Ludhiana and Fazilka are similar, barring minor details, which are not relevant.

4. Under the provision of Section 6 of the Punjab Agricultural Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), Jagraon was declared as a notified market area. Thereafter, on 23.8.1963, old grain market (hereinafter referred to as the old Mandi ), Jagraon was declared as a principal market yard under Section 7 of the Act by the State of Punjab. The appellants herein are persons who had obtained licences as commission agents for carrying on their business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce. It is the case of the appellants that they were owners/tenants and were licensees of shops which were situated within the old Mandi. The State of Punjab on 27.3.1978, under Section 7 of the Act, declared a new grain market. Jagraon (hereinafter referred to as the new Mandi ) to be established as a sub-market yard. On 17.9.1984, by Notification issued under Section 7 of the Act, the old Mandi was denotified as the principal market yard. By another Notification of the same date, the Punjab Government declared the new Mandi as the principal yard under Section 7 of the Act. This was followed by Notification of the Punjab Government under Section 8 of the Act, issued on 30.3.1988, whereby it was directed that no transaction in agricultural produce would be transacted within the 5 K.Ms. of the new Mandi.

5. The promulgation of the aforesaid Notifications gave rise to the filing of a number of writ petitions before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. With regard to Jagraon, the first Writ Petition (C) No. 6174 of 1988 was filed by 92 dealers of the old Mandi of Jagraon on 26.7.1988 in favour of the petitioners (appellants herein). This petition was dismissed on 26.7.1990 by the Single Judge and Letter Patent Appeal No. 1107 of 1990 was filed. In the meantime, Civil Writ Petition No. 4199 of 1991 was filed on 18.3.1991 by the dealers of Sirhind, Patiala. The said petition was admitted and referred to the full Bench and, in that case also, interim stay was granted.

6. Circular dated 2.3.1993 was issued by the Punjab Mandi Board to the effect that the dealers/licensees will arrange for themselves plots in the new Mandi, Jagraon. This was followed by Notices dated 18.10.1993 which were issued by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board to some of the dealers. In these Notices, reference was made to the Notification issued under Sections 7 & 8 of the Act and the dealers/licensees were directed to shift to new Mandi for the purposes of conducting the business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce. Aggrieved by these Notices, 149 dealers, including the appellants in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11139 of 1995, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15831 of 1993. It appears that 16 of these petitioners were the petitioners in the first Writ Petition No. 6174 of 1988 but the fact of filing of earlier Writ Petition was not disclosed in this petition. Civil Writ Petition No. 15831

Click Here to Read the rest of this document