IMPORTANT POINTS
The Rules of 1999 and 2008 are legally valid;
Any person who has obtained a license for the first time must have a valid licence for a period of more than 3 years;
In case of renewal of license the Rules provide a window of 3 months. If any dealer had submitted a complete application for renewal prior to the expiry of his licence but the licence was not renewed for 3 months for no fault of the dealer, then he would be entitled to count that period as a period of licence.
The primary evidence for proof of turnover is Form ‘M’ and in the absence of form ‘M’, Form ‘H’ and ‘J’. No other document can be taken into consideration for proving the turnover.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Leave granted.

2. Civil Appeal Nos.8015­8016/2019 @ SLP (C) Nos.24397­ 24398 of 2010, arise out of judgment dated 20.05.2009 whereas Civil Appeal No.8017­8026/2019 @ out of SLP(C) Nos. 28275­ 28284 of 2015, arise out of judgment dated 06.01.2015, Civil Appeal No.8028 of 2019 @ out of SLP (C) No.2034 of 2017, arise out of judgment dated 18.05.2016, Civil Appeal No.8027 OF 2019 @ out of SLP (C) No.33899 of 2016, arise out of judgment dated 24.05.2016 and Civil Appeal No.8029 OF 2019 @ out of SLP (C) No.15310 of 2017, arise out judgment dated 18.05.2016, delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

3. The aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they involve common questions of law.

4. In the first case, challenge was laid to various provisions of The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and transfer of Plots) (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 2008 Rules), and Rule 3(iii) and (iv) of The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 1999 Rules). The High Court held these Rules to be valid.

5. In the second group of appeals, the High Court vide judgments dated 06.01.2015 and 18.05.2016 interpreted the Rules, holding that a person can furnish adequate proof of his working in the de­notified market yard even if he did not hold a licence on the cut­off date.

6. To appreciate the issues in hand it will be pertinent to mention that the original writ petitioners before the High Court are licenced traders of agricultural produce and doing their business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce in different Mandis in the State of Punjab. In terms of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961), this work can only be carried out in Mandis or Markets set up for this purpose. Most of the petitioners were licenced dealers working in the old markets.

7. As a town or city grows the grain market has to be shifted. The old market is de­notified and a new market is set up. The dealers who were doing this work in the old market applied for allotment of plots/shops in the new grain market. Their applications having been rejected, hence the writ petitions. The High Court did not grant any relief in the writ petitions decided in 2010, and the dealers have filed appeals before this Court. In the second group of petitions which were decided in 2015 & 2016 the High Court granted some relief to the dealers. Hence, the market boards are in appeal before us.

8. We are concerned with two sets of Rules, viz., the 1999 Rules and the 2008 Rules. The case of the appellants is that the Rules are against the judgment of this Court in Labha Ram and Sons and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 207 wherein while interpreting the provisions of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960), it was held that the Government has an obligation to provide sufficient accommodation to all the existing licence dealers with regard to the handicaps they suffered due to the creation of new market area. This Court also held that the dealers who were already functioning in the denotified markets should not be made to compete with new entrants. This Court, further directed that the Government should fix a reasonable rate above the reserve price for such old licenced dealers. It would be pertinent to mention that when Labha Ram’s case (supra) was decided there was no provision for preferential allotment to the old dealers. They had to take part in auctions and pay the market price. It was after this judgment that the 1999 Rules were notified. Relevant portion of Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules reads as follows:­

“3. Sale of plots ­ All plots in the markets developed by the Board or Committees shal