JUDGMENT :

MEHTA, J.

The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner M/s ARG Agritrade Pvt. Ltd., through its Director for assailing the order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court whereby, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13282/2019 preferred by the appellant writ petitioner with the following prayers, was dismissed :-

“1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the license issued to the respondent No.5 dated 11.7.19 (Annexure-) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents no.1 to 4 be restrained from issuing any license and establishing any sub market yard at chak 3 PTM, Tehsil Mohargarh-2, District Jaisalmer, in violation of the rules of Act of 1961 and Rules of 1987.

3. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be restrained from further establishing sub market yard in District Jaisalmer without prior survey of its viability and having specific policy for establishing private sub market yard.”

2. While entertaining the writ appeal, this Court passed an interim stay order dated 15.03.2022, restraining the respondents from establishing a new Sub-Market Yard (Private) in the area concerned without following the procedure provided in Rule 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market (Establishment of Sub-Market Yards) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1987’).

3. The matter comes up before this Court for passing orders on the application preferred by the respondent State of Rajasthan under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the ad interim stay order dated 15.03.2022. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, final arguments have been heard on the appeal.

4. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manvendra Singh Advocate, representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the procedure for setting up of a private sub-market yard is provided under Section 5-A of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) and Rule 56-A of Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1963’). Dr. Acharya urged that the only procedure/guidelines governing the establishment of the sub-market yards, be it by the Marketing Committee or by the private operators, is stipulated in Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market (Establishment of Sub-Market Yards) Rules, 1987. He urged that as per clause 3(d) of the Rules of 1987, a minimum distance of 20 Kilometers is mandatory between two market yards, be it a principal market yard or a sub-market yard. He urged that the State Government has prescribed this minimum distance criterion so as to provide incentive to the private players like the petitioners, desirous of setting up private sub-market yards. As per Dr. Acharya, if more than one sub-market yard is permitted to be set up within the distance of 20 Kilometers, the viability of running such yard will be compromised, which would be detrimental to the concept of encouraging private sub-market yards. On these grounds, Dr. Acharya implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022 and the decision of the State Government dated 11.07.2019, permitting the private respondent No.5-M/s Pithewala Agro Products and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. to set up a private sub-market yard within a short distance from the market yard set up by the appellant-petitioner.

5. Per contra, Shri Rajat Arora, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He urged that the Rules of 1987 stipulate the procedure for sub-market yards established by the “Market Committee” and do not in any manner, govern setting up or operation of private sub-market yards. He urged that as per Rule 56-A of the Rule