- (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation the petitioners have come up with the grievance that respondent No. 2, U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow through its Chairman and respondent No. 3, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Firozabad are not taking appropriate steps under U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') against respondent No. 4, Sabzi Adhati Association, Lalpur, Firozabad through its President Sri Naseer Ahmad, who are not only flouting the provisions of the Act but also acting contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36992 of 1995 dated 18-11-2004.
(2.) SRI R. B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that so far as relief No. 2 is concerned, he has been advised not to press it. It is further urged that respondent No. 4 is engaged in wholesale transactions of notified agricultural produce at Lalpur despite the fact that the State Government has already issued Notification under Section 7 (2) (b) of the Act notifying a 'market area' for said wholesale transactions. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36992 of 1995 vide judgment dated 18-11-2004, while dismissing the writ petition, however, further directed that respondent No. 4, who was petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, shall shift business to the new market yard by 30th June, 2005 and shall not transact any wholesale business at Lalpur after 30-6-2005. It is contended that despite the aforesaid direction, the respondent No. 4 and its members are continuing with their wholesale business at Lalpur in flagrant violation of the Act and the authorities of the Mandi Samiti are also not taking any steps for observance of the provisions of the Act so as to ensure that no person should transact any wholesale business at a place other than the notified market area. It is further contended that inaction on the part of the authorities of the Mandi Samiti appears to be in collusion with respondent No. 4. Sri B. D. Mandhayan, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3, however, seriously disputed the allegation of collusion and stated that they are taking all possible steps to prevent any wholesale business at Lalpur but respondent No. 4 on the pretext of one or the other reason is continuing with such business. Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, however, stated that the members of the Union of respondent No. 4 have already consented to shift their business to the notified area provided the basic facilities and amenities are provided by the Mandi Samiti. He also submits that most of the members of respondent No. 4 union have neither been provided with suitable shops nor basic amenities and facilities are available in the market area and, therefore, they were compelled to continue their business at Lalpur. However, he also stated that since 30-6-2006, the members of respondent No. 4 union have not transacted any business at Lalpur.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed that the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification in the year 1995 in exercise of powers under Section 7 (2) (b) of the Act notifying Navin Mandi Sthal, Kotla Road, Firozabad as the market area for Firozabad for the purpose of wholesale and commission based transactions in fruits and vegetables. The Mandi Samiti, Firozabad published a notice on 8th December, 1995 notifying to all the persons to shift their wholesale transactions in the aforesaid commodities in the notified market area. Challenging the aforesaid notification, it appears that the respondent No. 4 approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 36992 of 1995 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 18-11-2004 with the following directions: "following the aforesaid decisions this petition is dismissed. The respondents are directed to provide suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioners and its members with all necessary facilities. The petitioners and granted till 30-6-2005 to shift from the present location to the alternative new market yard provide to them. Thereafter the petitioners must shift from the present location. ";