Hari Nath Tilhari, J. - (1.) By these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for the quashing of notification -Annexure-C dated 10-5-1996, in No. APMC (Sira), 243/1996-97, issued by respondent No. 1 that is, the Agricultural Market Produce Committee, Sira. Petitioners have further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1, to allot the sites including the so-called corner sites to the Market Functionaries on the basis of the applications filed by the Market Functionaries.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners claim themselves to be the licensed market functionaries, that the respondent No. 1 developed the market yard and for that purpose an extent of 20 acres was purchased by the Market Committee but, according to petitioners on account of financial difficulties, the respondent No. 1 could not provide all the facilities but, only Roads were formed along with certain sites demarcated therein. The respondent No. 1 in order to make allotment of the sites to the market functionaries called for applications and the market functionaries moved the applications. Respondent No. 1, even before finalising the applications for allotment, persuaded the petitioners and other market functionaries to shift the new market area and to take sites in the order in which their respective shops were situate in the Old Market Yards, to which according to the petitioners, they agreed. That petitioners were allowed to occupy sites bearing Nos. 9 to 17 in site plan - Annexure-'A' and these sites measured 60 x 100 fts. That other sites were of little dimensions. The respondent No. 2, as per recommendation of respondent No. 1, fixed the rate at Rs. 6/- per sq. feet. The petitioners, out of 28 applicants seeking allotment, deposited 1/4 of cost of site measuring 60' x 100' valued at Rs. 36,000/-. The petitioner had sought as per petitioners' case allotment of sites 9 to 17. That during the pendency of the applications, respondent No. 1, issued a notification dated 10th May, 1996, proposing to hold tender-cum-auction in respect of 11 corner sites namely, corner sites bearing Nos. 9,16, 17, 24, 25, 31, 32, 38, 53 and 54, copy of the notification has been annexed as Annexure-C to these Writ Petitions. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the notification issued by respondent No. 1, proposing to sell or allot the so-called corner sites by way of tender in public auction. According to the petitioner's case, this approach of the Market Committee that is, adoption of the process of tender by public auction has been without authority of law. The petitioners have taken the plea that there are no rules framed authorising the respondents to sell the so-called corner sites by way of tender or public auction, that the market yard is developed for the purpose of regulating the marketing of agricultural produce and that the functionaries are to be allotted the shops or the sites to facilitate the organising of the marketing. The petitioners' case is that the institution created under Marketing Act that is, the Market Committee is not a profit-making body.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Jayakumar S. Patil. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this process of allotment of the shop by way of tender or public auction is illegal and without jurisdiction. Sri Patil, submitted that the petitioners have been the allottees in the Old Market Yard. Sri. Patil, submitted that the functionaries have been carrying on their business in the Old Market Yard in their shops. But now, the Market Yard is being changed, they cannot carry on the business of the Old Market Yard. So, the applicants have applied for the shops, would have been allotted and given preference for the allotment of the comer shops if, shops would not have been subjected to tender-cum-public auction. That the Market Committee is a social welfare institution and not a profit-making institution. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no provision either in the Act or the Rules which could be said to provide for such a mode of tender-cum-auction being adopted. The learned Counsel submitted that as such, the notification provides for the transference of the sites on the basis of tender-cum-auction method in favour of the highest bidder it runs counter to the letter and spirit of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act. The notification is beyond the scope of power of the authority concerned and as such, deserves to be quashed. Sri. B. G. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that it is not obligatory on the State or the State Authorities to construct the shops and give preference to the persons carrying on the business in the Old Market Yard to enable them to shift to the New Market Yard. It is within the power of the State or State Authorities in such cases to allot or to sell the sites by adopting the mode of tender-cum-auction confining it to the market functionaries and not to the people in general keeping in view the spirit of the law in the Act and its object. As it is confined only to market functionaries, the market functionaries can participate. It is open to the petitioners as well to participate in that auction proceeding and offer the bids and to obtain the sites. Sri. B. G. Sridharan, placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Chintram Ram Chand v. State of Punjab and other connected cases reported in AIR 1996 SC 1406.;