2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 12677
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 13th March, 2024 Decided on: 19th June, 2024 + W.P. (C) 8460-8474/2005 BRAJ BHAN RAHUL & OTHERS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anup Kumar Das, Ms. Aayushi Gupta and Mr. Nairit Bansal, Advocates V AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 CORAM HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
J U D G M E N T
1. The present writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the respondents for quashing the orders of cancellation of licenses of the petitioners and to restore and renew the ‘A’ Category licenses of the petitioners issued to them under The Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) General Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).
2. The facts of the present case as stated in the petition are that the petitioners were engaged in sale and purchase of fruits and vegetables at Subzi Mandi, Shakarpur Pushta, Shahdara, Delhi. The petitioners submitted Application Forms supported with necessary documents with the respondent no.1 for obtaining ‘A’ Category Licenses and were granted ‘A’ Category Licences for entire Trans Yamuna Market Area after making proper enquiries and verification of the facts stated in the Application Forms and the documents filed by the petitioners along with Application Forms. The licenses were granted for Subzi Mandi, Shakarpur Pushta, Shahdara, Delhi which was an approved sub yard of the respondent no.1. The petitioners were not having allotted shop/place in Fruit & Vegetable Market, Ghazipur, Delhi-110096 and as such continued to carry on sale and purchase of fruits and vegetables at Subzi Mandi, Shakarpur Pushta, Shahdara, Delhi. The petitioners had deposited market fees regularly in the office of the respondent no.1 at Shakarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. The sheds of the fruits and vegetables were demolished on
04.05.2002 and the petitioners were removed from Subzi Mandi, Shakarpur Pushta, without giving any notice to them. The respondents had assured the petitioners for providing sheds to the petitioners at the newly constructed fruit and vegetable market at Ghazipur, Shahdara, Delhi for carrying on sale and purchase of fruits and vegetables but the respondents did not allot any shed or any other place to the petitioners in Fruit and Vegetable Market, Ghazipur, Shahdara, Delhi.
2.1 The respondent no.1 after demolition of the sheds from Subzi Mandi, Shakarpur, Shahdara, Delhi issued Show Cause Notices to the petitioners regarding cancellation of licenses of the petitioners. The petitioners along with other licence holders filed Civil Writ Petitions bearing no. 4570/2002 titled as Subhash & Others V Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Others and 1355/2003 titled as Sonia Kapoor & Others V Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Others before this Court for allotment of alternative places at Ghazipur Fruit and Vegetable Market, Delhi which were disposed of vide order dated 05.08.2003 with directions to take necessary decision in pursuance to the show cause notices and responses received from the petitioners after due consideration of the documents within four months. The respondent no.1 after order dated 05.08.2003, commenced a follow up action on the basis of Show Cause Notices. The petitioners submitted reply to the show causes notices wherein they denied the allegations of the show cause notices regarding obtaining of the licenses by submitting false and wrong information. The petitioners also submitted their supporting documents along with replies to the show cause notices. The Assistant Secretary of the respondent no.1 cancelled the renewal applications of the petitioners by a common Order/Letter without giving reasons and without proper scrutiny and verification of the documents submitted by the petitioners in gross violation of order dated 05.08.2003.
2.2 The petitioners filed their respective Appeals before the Vice Chairman of the respondent no.2 i.e. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board under Section 82 of the Act. The petitioners also submitted the documents along with Appeals and also denied allegations of the respondent no.1. The Vice Chairman of the respondent no.2 did not consider the Appeals properly and did not provide any opportu