Adherence to the eligibility conditions outlined in the agricultural marketing board rules is crucial for preferential allotment of plots in the market yard, and lack of substantial evidence to meet the eligibility criteria can result in dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral). - Vide this petition, the petitioner essentially seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of 'certiorari' quashing the order passed by the revisional authority (Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare), dated 20.12.2017, by which the revision filed by the Market Committee, Safidon (respondent no.3) herein, has been allowed and the order passed in favour of the petitioner by the appellate authority, has been set aside.

2. The background of the matter is that the Market Committee, Safidon, had invited applications from 'old licencees of Category-II' working in the market yard, as the market yard was likely to be denotified.

The petitioner herein as also other persons submitted their applications to the committee, with an order dated 19.12.2002 having been passed, by which the petitioner was declared ineligible for the draw of lots, on the ground that it did not have an independent premises in the old mandi as was required in terms of Rule 3(1)(vi) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rule, 2000.

In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority remanded the matter to the allotment committee for reconsideration, with the committee again having rejected the claim of the petitioner and with the appeal filed against that order again having been allowed by the appellate authority on 22.09.2014.

Thereafter, a revision came to be filed by the Market Committee leading to the passing of the impugned order.

Before the revisional authority the Market Committee had stated that there were two firms carrying on the business from one shop, with 'the senior licencee firm', i.e. the one as had been granted the license earlier, having been allotted a plot on preferential basis.

The Market Committee had also inspected the business premises at the time of consideration of applications in the year 2002 and had found that there was no pucca partition of the shop in question and therefore, in terms of Rule 3(1)(vi) of the aforesaid rules the petitioner firm was not entitled to be allotted a plot on preferential basis.

The said rule reads as follows:-

"(vi) the category (ii) licensee must have an independent premises, either own or rented, in the old mandi to be denotified. 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."

The revisional authority also noticed that the Market Committee did not deny the possession of the petitioner over the shop and also did not deny that there were separate electricity meters installed in the shop, one in the name of each licencee but installation of separate electricity meters did not meet the criteria of the requirement of a pucca partition in the premises from which two licencees were operating.

It was noticed by the revisional authority that the appellate authority had rejected that contention also only on the ground of separate electricity meters and on simply a contention having been raised by the petitioner that there was a pacca partition in the original shop for four years prior to the cut off date.

Hence, holding that allotment of a shop on preferential basis is to be made in accordance with the rules of 2000 and the eligibility conditions contained therein, the appellate authority had erred in passing an order in favour of the petitioner herein.

It was further observed that any firm is entitled to get a shop by participating in an open auction alongwith the general public but preferential allotment of plots at controlled rates could only be in terms of the rules and therefore allotment to ineligible traders would cause a huge loss to the public exchequer with it also lessening the opportunity to the general public to start a business in the mandi.

Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in fact it was an incorre