Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
Arg Agritrade Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 157/2022
Decided On : 17-05-2022
Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate- cum-AAG assisted by Mr. Manvendra Singh, Mr. B.S. Sandhu, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG, Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jai Naveen, Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. L.K. Purohit, Advocates, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive authority of the Director or the empowered authority by the State Government in granting permission for private sub-market yards, and the distinction between the rules governing sub-market yards proposed by the Market Committee and those governing private sub-market yards.
Headnote:
Sub-Market Yards - Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963, Rule 3(d) of the Rules of 1987 - The court discussed the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, and the relevant rules governing the establishment of sub-market yards, both by the Market Committee and by private operators. The court emphasized the exclusive authority of the Director or the empowered authority by the State Government in granting permission for private sub-market yards, and clarified that the Rules of 1987 apply to sub-market yards proposed by the Market Committee, while the guidelines for private sub-market yards are governed by Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner appealed against the dismissal of their petition seeking to declare the license issued to the respondent as illegal and to restrain the establishment of a sub-market yard in violation of the rules. The court heard arguments regarding the procedure for setting up private sub-market yards and the authority responsible for granting permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rules of 1987 do not apply to private sub-market yards and are meant for sub-market yards to be set up upon the request of the Market Committee. The exclusive authority to grant approval for setting up private sub-market yards lies with the Director or the Authority empowered by the State Government, as per Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the Rules of 1987 to private sub-market yards and the authority responsible for approving the establishment of such yards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules of 1987 apply to sub-market yards proposed by the Market Committee, while the guidelines for private sub-market yards are governed by Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963. It emphasized the exclusive authority of the Director or the empowered authority by the State Government in granting permission for private sub-market yards.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed as the court found no merit in the contention that the respondents acted illegally in approving the application for setting up the private sub-market yard. All pending applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep 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
