Back
2003 Supreme(Raj) 610
Rajasthan High Court
Honble ANIL DEV SINGH CJ. & HIMMAT RAM PANWAR, J.
Vijay Raj Kailash Chandra (M/s.) - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Sp. Appeal (W) No. 342 of 2003
Decided On : July 21, 2003
S.P. Sharma, for Appellants Ravi Bhansali, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, Sec. 6 – Law of acquiescence – Allotted shops by auction in Krishi Upaj Mandi – Executed agreement – Lateron refused to pay rents on the ground that the judgement of Division Bench (RLW 2003(1) Raj. 453) did not approve the system of auction – Issued notices to vacate the premises – Held – Judgement came much after the allotment – Having taken benefit of the acceptance of their bid and consequent possession of the shops, the appellants cannot turn back and urge that the policy of putting the shops to auction was untenable.
Once an order is passed and accepted by the party and from that order it derives benefit and advantage for sometime, the party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of that order. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly disallowed the appellants from assailing the validity of the policy of auction by virtue of which they have been deriving benefit of the possession of the shops and took advantage by utilising them for trading purpose. The parties entered into the bargain on the footing that the appellant shall pay the agreed rent based on bids given by them in open auction. Single the appellants seek to wriggle out of their basic obligation, the entire bargain will perish. In that even, as a necessary corollary the appellants will be required to give up the possession of the shops. (Para 11)
(2). The appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.01.2003 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3915/2002 etc. By that order the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions basing its decision on an earlier judgment rendered in M/s. Marudhar Trading Co., Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1).
(3). The State Government established Krishi Upaj Mandi Samities at District Jodhpur and at various other places. This was done in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6 of the Rajasthan agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (for short `the Act).
(4). In the instant appeals we are concerned with Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur. The Samiti constructed shops in the Municipal Market Yards. Initially the Samiti invited applications for allotment of shops to traders who were eligible for allotment on the basis of original Policy, taking into account the length of business, turnover and market fee paid by the traders. Subsequently, this Policy was changed and the Samiti started allotment of shops by way of auction.
(5). The appellants before us were allotted shops after they participated in the auctions as per the following details:-
Ø- la- uke QkeZ nqdku la- vf/klwpuk fuykehfnukad fuykeh fnukad dCtk frfFk ,xzhesaV fnukad cdk;kjkfkekgtqykbZ 03 rd
1. ftrsUnz VsªMlZ bZ-r`rh;-1 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 25250
2. nyky guoarjkt bZZ-r`rh;-2 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 25250
3. Hkxorh VsªfMax da bZ-r`rh;-3 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 23750
4. xqykcpUn ,.M dEiuh bZ-r`rh;-4 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 42820
5. y{eh ,tsUlht ,.M dEiuh bZ-r`rh;-10 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 24600
6. Hkxorh czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-11 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 27760
7. izdkk VsªfMx dEiuh bZ-r`rh;-13 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 29500
8. egky{eh VsªMlZ bZ-r`rh;-14 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 27600
9. fo".kq czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-15 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 81960
10. egkohj VsªfMax dEiuh bZ-r`rh;-16 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 91460
11. Hkokuh czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-18 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 67940
12. vt; czksdlZ bZ-r`rh;-20 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 23.11.95 23.11.95 84700
13. pkWaney vfHk"ksd th-f}rh;-20 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.8.95 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 23598
14. fjgrs"k VsªfMzx dEiuh ,p-1 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 21000
15. dapu gkÅl ,p-11 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 –
16. foosd ,UVj izkbZtst ,p-19 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 10.4.2000 10.4.2000 –
17. fot;jkt dSykk pUnz MCY;w-5 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 28.10.99 29.1.1997 3.3.1997 –
18. e:/kj VsªfMax dEiuh MCY;w-7 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 26.8.95 30.9.2000 30.9.2000 121000
19. ckcwyky pEikyky MCY;w-10 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 14.7.2000 29.1.1997 29.1.1997 –
20. dklyhoky czknlZ MCY;w-11 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 26.8.95 29.1.1997 29.1.1997 –
21. vfuy dqekj fouksn dqekj MCY;w-12 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 26.8.95 29.1.1997 29.1.1997 –
22. vksdpan lqjsk dqekj MCY;w-18 26.4.95 o 7.6.95 26.8.95 29.1.1997 29.1.1997 –
lfpo
d`f"k mit e.Mh lfefr ¼vukt½
tks/kiqj
uksV%&1- Øa- la- 13 esa nkkZ;h x;h jkfk foyEc kqYd dh gSA
2- gj ekg dh 20 rkjh[k rd vkaoVu kqYd@fdjk;k tek djkus dk izko/kku gSA
3- foyac kqYd 3 izfrkr dh nj ls i`Fkd ls olwyh dh tkuh gSA
4- x`gdj i`Fkd ls lEcfU/kr QeZ dks tek djokuk gSA
(7). As is apparent from above chart, the appellants and the Samiti entered into an agreements to effectuate and formalise the arrangements between them resulting from the acceptance of the appellants bids made at the above auctions. The appellants in the beginning honoured the agreements and paid the rent of the shops which were allotted to them. It appears that after sometime they become wiser and stopped paying the rent on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra & Co. & 17 Ors. vs. State
