The central legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility criteria for allotment in a Market Committee, as per Rule 3(1)(vi) of the Rules, 2000, must be interpreted based on the specific facts of each case, and previous judgments may not be directly applicable.

JUDGMENT :

JASWANT SINGH, J.

CM No. 1286-CWP of 2021

1. This is an application under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record Annexure P-5, which is an order dated 15.12.2020 passed by Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula.

For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit of petitioner, the application is allowed and the order dated 15.12.2020 is taken on record as Annexure P-5.

Registry is directed to place the same at appropriate place in the paperbook and paginate the same.

MAIN CASE

Petitioner - M/s Gaurav Fruit Company has filed the instant writ petition, being aggrieved against the order dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Agricultural and Farmers Welfare Department, whereby revision petition filed by Market Committee Hissar was allowed and the allotment made in favor of petitioner for a shop in New Vegetable Market, Hissar on preferential basis was cancelled in view of Rule 3(1)(vi) of Sale of Immovable Property Rules, 2000 (for short “The Rules, 2000”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 1 has wrongly overturned the well reasoned findings given by the authorities below who had categorically held that the petitioner firm was holding a Category II Licence and operating for the last more than 14 years and therefore is entitled for allotment. It is further submitted that Rule 3(1)(vi) has wrongly been applied in the instant case as the firm of petitioner is operating since 1996 whereas the Rules have come into existence in the year 2000. To support his arguments, the counsel has relied upon judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8345 of 2010, titled M/s Kishori Lal Suresh Kumar vs. Chief Administrator Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Others decided on 19.01.2012; Division Bench judgment of this Court in Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula vs. Bharat Bhushan Aggarwal, 1998 (2) PLR 824 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 7494 of 1997, titled M/s Singla Trading Company vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Another decided on 20.03.2009. Hence, prayer has been made for allowing the writ petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have scrutinized the paper book.

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 (P-3) as well as record reveals that entire issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 3(1) (vi) of the Rules, 2000, therefore it would be gainful to reproduce the said rule, which reads as under:-

“The category-II licensee must have an independent premises, either own or rented, in the old mandi to be de-notified. In case there are more than one licensee in the same premises, the oldest firm or the one which is agreed upon in writing by all the firms occupying the same premises, shall be eligible.

A plain and simple reading of the said provision makes it clear that:

(i) a category-II licence holder must have an independent premises either rented or owned for being eligible.

(ii) in case there are more than one licensee in same premises, then the oldest firm or the one agreed upon in writing by all firms occupying the same premises, shall be eligible.

4.1 Admittedly, the petitioner firm is a category-II licence holder but is not having an independent premises, as same is running from shop No. 84-B (which is a part of shop No. 84). Simultaneously, another shop was running its business from shop No. 84-A, which again is part of shop No. 84. It is further not disputed by petitioner that the oldest firm of the premises i.e. shop No. 84-A has already been allotted a shop in New Vegetable Market, Hissar on preferential basis. Once that is so, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner-Firm is not entitled to allotment of any preferential shop and the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 (P-3) does not suffer from any infirmity, as Rule 3(1)(vi) was correctly