JUDGMENT

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The petitioners are whole-sale grain traders and merchants. In these writ proceedings, they question a resolution of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Board (hereafter, "the Board" by its resolution dated 14-9-2005 ("the impugned order") whereby it decided to allot space in the newly developed Agricultural Market (hereafter the "New Narela Mandi") only to commission agents.

2. The Board is an apex institution, constituted under provisions of the erstwhile Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976. That Act was repealed and replaced by the 1998 Act. The Board is entrusted with over all supervision and control of all the existing Market Committees, development of new markets, improvement in the marketing services and to provide additional facilities like grading and standardization. The Board supervises nine Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees which are functional in Delhi. In September, 1986, the erstwhile Board, acting under the old (repealed) Act, decided to shift an existing (i.e the old) market place, or mandi dealing in foodgrains, from Narela to a new mandi at Narela. According to the notice issued on 12-9-1986, Category A and B licencees were entitled to space and allotment of plots in the new mandi. Land was acquired by the Delhi Government; it was paid by the Board from a fund, created out of market fees paid by traders and commission agents; it was known as the Market Development Fund. On 31-3-1989, the Board resolved that traders operating in the old market would be entitled to allotment of plots, upon development and shifting of the mandi to its new locale.

3. It is averred, and contended on behalf of the petitioner that the decision of the Board was reiterated in another resolution of 15-12-1997; it was similar to the criteria adopted for allotment of plots/ sites in other markets which were developed at the time, and faced similar administrative action of relocation. The petitioners felt aggrieved by a decision of the Board, revising its previous orders, and disqualifying them from allotment in the new mandi. This decision was taken on 24-5-2000. The decision was challenged before a batch of writ petitions, being WP 701/2002. It was contended that the body which took the decision was not a Board as no board was properly constituted, according to provisions of the Act, and that the decision was procedurally indefensible.

4. Learned counsel, Shri S.K. Sinha relied upon the findings of this court, recorded in its judgement dated 4-8-2005, to the effect that the decision to reverse the resolution of 1989 was not taken properly. The court directed the Board to carry out allotments in lines of Resolution No. 3 of 1989 within 90 days unless at a Board meeting held within such period, a clear and unambiguous policy decision on allotment were taken. It is contended that the impugned order is nothing but a mindless reiteration of the previous illegal decision and has to consequently suffer the same fate.

5. Learned counsel relied upon the intervening decision in the resolution of 15-12-1997 and submitted that the Board was alive to the problems faced by wholesalers and traders who were not commission agents. Such people had been functioning on the basis of valid licenses granted and renewed from time to time. The Board had decided to allot plots to all of them on the basis of a cut off date in 1991. A similar decision for allotment of plots had been taken and implemented when other markets were sought to be relocated. There was no reason why a different policy was to be specially formulated and applied to the petitioners, who undoubtedly fell within the same class as those functioning in such other markets, receiving the benefit of relocation. Thus, the impugned decision was arbitrary and also liable to be set aside as the authorities did not take into account relevant considerations.

6. The respondent Board, in its counter affidavit, defends the impugned