SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, SANJIV BERRY, JJ.
M/s. Bhagat Ram Kanhiya Lal & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 21074 of 2017
Decided On : 24-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate; For the Petitioners
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for Respondent-HSVP.
Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 - Section 10 - Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 - Writ petition filed under Article 226/227 for quashing an order allowing revision petition filed after an unexplained delay. Petitioners claimed priority for allotment of plots based on their old licenses. Court held that the delay of 2 years and 8 months in filing revision was not justified and the order set aside due to lack of substantial cause. (Paras 1, 14-20)

(B) Limitation - Filing of appeal/revision petitions - Delay must be explained satisfactorily; mechanical condonation of delay is inappropriate. (Para 15)

(C) Administrative Authority Discretion - Authority must adhere to rules without arbitrarily penalizing parties for administrative delays. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, licensed commission agents, challenged an order re-fixing prices for allotment of plots post-de-notification of the Old Mandi, contending their rights were infringed due to delayed administrative actions.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order condoning the delay was set aside, and the original order for allotment was reinstated.

Issues: Main issue was the justification of the delay in challenging the earlier order and the arbitrary indexing of pricing affecting the petitioners' rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delay in appeals must be adequately justified, and substantive rights cannot be disregarded due to administrative lapses.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside, and directions given for allotment as per the original order of 02.07.2013.

Table of Content
1. background on petitioners' license and claims (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding delay and arbitrary pricing (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 18)
3. court's observations on procedural fairness (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. law on condonation of delay in revisions (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. conclusion reaffirming petitioners' rights (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjiv Berry, J.

Present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 14.09.2016 (P-14) passed by Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Department of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare.

2. In nutshell, the petitioners are old licencee of the category (ii) and had been transacting business of commission agents in Old Anaj Mandi, Chopta Bazar, Jhajjar. They were issued licence of category (ii) on 01.04.1976 and 08.08.1980 respectively under Section 10 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 and the said licence had been renewed periodically. In the year 2002, respondents de-notified the Mandi (Grain Market) (Annexure P-2) and auction for new Grain Market was fixed for 01.12.2009. The petitioners being old licence holder were entitled for allotment of plots/shops at reserve price prevalent at that time on priority basis as per the Rule 3(1) of "The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961". Aggrieved with the auction notice dated 01.12.2009 petitioners filed CWP No. 18284 of 2009 titled "M/s Bhagat Ram Kanhiya Lal and others" and vide orders dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) petition was withdrawn, on the statement of counsel representing the respondents stating that there was no proposal with the Market committee to de-notify the old market committee.

3. Petitioners and other commission agents moved representation dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) for allotment of plots/shops on preferential basis at the reserve price.

4. Petitioners filed another Writ Petition No.20544 of 2009 claiming for allotment of the plots/shops on the reserve price, with a further prayer not to confirm the auction dated 1.12.2009. The said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure P-4) on the short reply filed by the respondents that petitioner may apply for the allotment in Form-A of the Rules of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules 2000, the claim of the petitioners be considered within one month.

5. Petitioners were given a memorandum of offer dated 13.04.2010 (Annexure P-5) for plot No.45 and 46 measuring 6Mx28M each with reserve price @Rs. 50,13,000/-. Petitioners, under protest, deposited Rs. 12,53,250/- each i.e. 25% of the total amount and sought allotment at the reserve price of Rs. 27,30,000/- which was prevalent reserve price prior to auction dated 01.12.2009. Both the petitioners wrote letter dated 28.05.2011 (Annexure P-8) and on 02.07.2013 (Annexure P-9) respondent No.2 ordered for refixing the reserve price without taking into account the auction prices. Despite order dated 02.07.2013 no action was taken by the respondents with regard to reserve price. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-10, dated 29.06.2015, petitioners served legal notice to comply with orders dated 02.07.2013 passed by respondents No.2. Feeling aggrieved petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos. 3784 of 2016 and 3813 of 2016 and vide orders dated 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-11) the same were disposed of with direction to the Competent Authority to decide the representation before 30.06.2016. Vide Annexure P-12 dated 01.03.2016, the petitioners submitted their representations. When petitioners were waiting for the outcome of the representations, it was learnt that order dated 02.07.2013 (Annexure P-9) passed by Respondent No.2 had been assailed by respondent No.3 (Market Committee) before respondent No.1 on 16.03.2016 (Anne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top