In these five Writ Petitions, the decision of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in allotting space for running electronic weigh bridge in favour of one Amit Kumar Agarwal s/o. Lakshminarayan Agarwal, is challenged. Though the petitioners in each of these Writ Petitions are different, as the respondents and the subject matter of the dispute are common, they are heard and being disposed of together.

2. For convenience, the respondents are referred as they are arrayed in W.P. No.19520/2010.

3. The background leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions is briefly summarized as under:

4. Respondent No.3-The Agricultural Market Committee, Gaddiannaram, (for short "the Market Committee) which was an unit of Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, constituted under the provisions of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act 1996 (for short, "the Act"), was formed as a separate market committee with effect from 1-1-2006. L.B. Nagar vegetable market is under the administrative control of the Market Committee. Various varieties of fruits such as mangoes, sweet lime, oranges, bananas, pomegranates, apples etc., are brought in large scale into this market whose jurisdiction covers Saroornagar, Hayathnagar, Uppal and Ghatkesar Mandals of Ranga Reddy District. From the note circulated by the Market Committee, it is revealed that there are 243 commission agents and 228 traders in the said market.

5. When the Market Committee was part of the Hyderabad Market Committee, respondent No.2 issued a public notice published in the Press on 22-1-1992 inviting applications from the -educated unemployed persons who have passed Intermediate for allotment 0f site in as many as 33 market yards for installation of weigh bridges at their own cost. Hyderabad was one such market yard included in the said notice. The petitioner in W.P.No.11463/2010 who applied in pursuance of the said notice was selected for allotment of site at Gaddiannaram and Open space admeasuring 216 sq. yards at the entrance of the market yard was allotted in his favour on lease for a period of 30 years. Accordingly, the said person has established-the weigh bridge in the name and style of Sri Venkateshwara Weigh Bridge. In the year 2005, the said person was asked to shift the weigh bridge from the front side to the backside of the market yard on the ground of traffic congestion. Though he initially protested, on the insistence of the Market Committee, he has shifted the weigh bridge to the rear side of the market yard in the year 2006 and has been carrying on his business at the shifted place.

6. As things stood thus, proposals appear to have been mooted by the Market Committee for establishment of a second electronic weigh bridge. In its General Body Meeting held on 7-8-2009 at 3 p.m., the Market Committee, after purportedly considering all the six applications, resolved to allot the site to one Amit Kumar Agarwal, respondent No.5. However, the Chairman has disagreed with the said resolution and gave his dissenting note to the effect that applications from the unemployed persons who passed 10th Class and in particular the physically challenged who do not have their own house or house site shall be invited through Press publication and the site be allotted in favour of the eligible persons. He has further opined that people coming from the other States and have been working as commission agents or their family members shall not be allotted the site under any circumstances. Obviously, on coming to know about the said resolution, the petitioners started making representations to respondent No.2 and the Market Committee. The petitioner in W.P. No.21758/2010 filed W.P.No.19185/2008 for a mandamus to declare rejection of his application by the Market Committee for allotting site for running the weigh bridge as illegal. This court by order dated 29-12-2009 while disposing of the said Writ Petition directed the respondents to give preference to the petitioner in allotment of the site fo