Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Ummaid Singh Ramchandra - Appellant
Versus
Karshi Upaj Mandi (fal Sabji) - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1988 of 2019
Decided On : 31-07-2019
O.P. Mehta, Advocate, V.D. Gaur, Advocate, Karan Singh Rajpurohit, Advocate, Rajat Arora, Advocate
The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is limited to checking whether it violates fundamental rights, is opposed to the Constitution or statutory provisions, or is manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy on the ground that it is erroneous or that a better alternative is available.
Headnote:
MANDI PREMISES TRANSFER POLICY - Rajasthan Immovable Allotment Policy, 2005 - Rajasthan Mandi Premises Transfer Policy, 2013 - Priority allotment - Interpretation and application - Legal rights vs. civil rights - Scope of judicial review of governmental policy.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, holders of valid licenses issued by the Mandi Samiti, challenged the shifting of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Paota to Savitri Phule Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti at Bhadwasia, claiming preferential treatment under the Rajasthan Immovable Allotment Policy, 2005 and Mandi Premises Transfer Policy, 2013. They alleged that the respondents reserved plots for female agriculturists and on their whims and fancies, without giving priority to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants' claim for priority allotment had already been adjudicated by the High Court in a previous writ petition and upheld the legality of the order. It further held that the appellants' right to allotment was a legal right arising from administrative circulars/policy, and not a civil right, and that the respondents had the authority to conduct the shifting of the mandi in the larger interest of the city and the traders.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were entitled to preferential treatment under the Rajasthan Immovable Allotment Policy, 2005 and Mandi Premises Transfer Policy, 2013. 2. Whether the respondents' reservation of plots for female agriculturists and on their whims and fancies was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellants' claim for priority allotment had already been adjudicated by the High Court in a previous writ petition and upheld the legality of the order. 2. The court further held that the appellants' right to allotment was a legal right arising from administrative circulars/policy, and not a civil right, and that the respondents had the authority to conduct the shifting of the mandi in the larger interest of the city and the traders.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that no interference was called for and that the stay application also stood dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The appellants have preferred this misc. appeal claiming the following relief :-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Case No.138/2018 may be quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to allot plots to the appellate between Block A to I in front face from 49 vacant plots reserved by the respondent authorities.
Any other order/relief which your Lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be issued in favour of the appellant."
2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the appellants have instituted the suit proceedings on account of being holders of the valid license issued by the respondentMandi Samiti, and they are operating their business from the plots allotted to them.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Government of Rajasthan, vide its order dated 29.12.2015, decided to shift Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Paota to Savitri Phule Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti situated at Bhadwasia.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that such shifting was to take place as per the Rajasthan Immovable Allotment Policy, 2005 and Mandi Premises Transfer Policy, 2013.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the Policy of 2013 was to be strictly adhered to. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there were total 158 shop owners, who were registered as Retailers and/or A-Category Brokers and were to be shifted from Paota to Bhadwasia.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Allotment Policy of 2005 required a preferential treatment to be given to the traders/shop owners/brokers, like the present appellants, under priority Clauses 3/7 and 3/8 of the Policy of 2013 before shifting to the new premises at Bhadwasia. As per learned counsel for the appellants, there are vacant shops, and therefore, shifting them to such new premises though could have been held by the lottery system, but the lottery should have been for a particular front face/row, whereas the appellants have been given shops on the rear side.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the Mandi Administration had 162 plots available in Block A to I, and therefore, for the purpose of allotment of 225 plots, and 162 plots out of them, should have been allocated in Blocks A to I and the remaining Blocks J to N could not have been included therefor.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the respondents have committed an illegality by reserving 12 plots for female agriculturists and 49 plots on their whims and fancies, without giving priority to the appellants.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the action of the respondents was challenged before this Hon'ble Court under the writ jurisdiction by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11558/2016 (M/s. Ummaid Singh Ramchandra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which was dismissed on 18.08.2017, but when the appeal being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.834/2017 was preferred against the said order, while dismissing the appeal vide judgment dated 10.10.2017, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had given liberty to the appellants to file a civil suit in relation to their civil rights.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that since the appellants gave representation for ventilating their grievances in relation to their civil rights, but the same was not responded and such grievances were never redressed by the respondents, therefore, suit was filed and temporary injunction was sought thereby.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned court below has, at length, dealt with the issue of priority allotment and has rejected the claim of the appellants
