Mr. Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.:- Petitioner No.2 (a proprietary concern owned by the 1st petitioner, and hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’), by way of this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure P-2), order dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure P-5) and a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to allot a plot in New Grain Market at reserved price to the petitioners, in terms of the provisions of Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2000 Rules’) and Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Amended Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2008 Rules’).

2. Facts and circumstances necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are that respondent No.4 invited applications on 15.06.2009 from the commission agents having old licenses of Category-II and working in the already notified market, which was to be de-notified, for allotment of plots on reserved price to them, in terms of the 2000 Rules. The petitioner was a licensed commission agent, having Licence No.747/NWN/Board (Annexure P-1), which was issued in its favour in the year 1995 and it has been running business for the last more than 17 years. Petitioner’s claim, however, was rejected being ineligible, vide order dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure P-2), on the ground that the petitioner was operating the business from first floor of old grain market. When appeal, filed by the petitioner against order dated 06.11.2009, came up for hearing, the respondents came out with a new plea that the petitioner had a licence of pucca arthiya (say wholesale dealer) and not that of a commission agent/kacha arthiya and for that reason, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, vide order dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-3). A revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) was also dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that the petitioner was holding a licence of pucca arthiya, i.e., whole sale dealer. To seek quashing of the aforesaid orders dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure P-2), 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) and 13.09.2012 (Annexure P-5), the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, which is being contested by respondent Nos.2 to 5.

3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5, wherein it has been pleaded that as the petitioner is holder of licence as pucca arthiya (i.e. wholesale dealer), therefore, it is not entitled for allotment of plot either under the 2000 Rules or under 2008 Rules.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. The controversy involved in the matter is only with regard to the type of the licence held by the petitioner. There is no dispute that if the petitioner is found to hold a licence of ‘commission agent’ or say ‘katcha arthiya’, it would be entitled for allotment of a plot on reserved/control rates.

6. A perusal of licence (Annexure P-1) reveals that entry No.5(2) of the licence issued under Section 10 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, relating to the nature of licence granted for katcha arthiya has been tick marked (H) against Commission Agent, which means that the licence was issued as Commission Agent/Katcha Arthiya in favour of the petitioner. The entry, incidentally, says Commission Agent, Katcha Arhtiya or other wholesale dealer for sale purchase or storage of agricultural produce. The tick mark (H), undisputedly, has been applied just before the term ‘Commission Agent’ or say ‘Katcha Arthiya’, which prima facie shows that the licence issued in favour of the petitioner was for running business as commission agent/katcha arthiya. When asked to clarify whether the licence issued in favour of