- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. Leave granted.
(2.) THIS appeal, by special leave, has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 5-9-2003 of a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, by which the writ petition filed by the appellants was summarily dismissed at the admission stage. The appellants herein filed the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the following reliefs : (i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned to allot the shops/godowns to the petitioners on hire purchase basis; (ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned not to interfere, in any manner, on the possession of the petitioners' shops and godowns allotted to them; (iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned not to compel the petitioners to enter into any agreement for taking shops/godowns allotted to them on rental basis. (iv) issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The writ petition was filed on behalf of 143 firms and individuals carrying on business in agricultural produce and the respondents arrayed in the writ petition were (1) State of U. P. through Director, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow; (2) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit through its Chairman; and (3) Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit. The case set up by the writ petitioners in the writ petition is as under. The petitioners are dealers in agricultural produce and have been granted licenses by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit, to carry on the said business. They were earlier carrying on business in Purana Galla Mandi in Pilibhit city. After construction of Nawin Mandi Sthal, they were directed to shift their business to the said newly constructed premises. Though the Nawin Mandi Sthal is at considerable distance from the city area and it lacked basic infrastructure, the petitioners shifted their business to the said place as it was intimated that a policy was being chalked out to give the shops and sheds, etc. to the license holders on hire- purchase basis. Subsequently in the year 1995, the Director, Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, sent a letter that the shops, godowns and sheds will be given to the license holders on hire-purchase basis. In some places like Haldwani, Rudrapur and Ghaziabad, in the State of U. P. , the shops and godowns were given to the license holders on hire-purchase basis. The writ petitioners were paying rent to Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit, regularly and had been repeatedly requesting the authorities of he Mandi Samiti to formally execute the document giving the shops and godowns to them on hire-purchase basis. However, instead of executing the said documents, the respondents had given them notice to execute an agreement with the Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit, whereunder the shops and godowns will be given to them on lease on rental basis. The writ petitioners who were carrying on business in the shops and godowns since 1986 and had been regularly paying the rent to the Mandi Samiti were under a bona fide impression that ultimately the same shall be transferred to them on hire-purchase basis. Some of the writ petitioners had spent money in making improvements in the shops and godowns under their occupation and the same was done with the prior approval of the Mandi Samiti. The proforma of the agreement which was now given to the writ petitioners contained a clause that after expiry of a period of 3 years, the rent shall be enhanced by 10 per cent. It was on these grounds that the writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
(3.) IN reply to the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit and the pleas taken therein are as under. The writ petitioners were carrying on business in wholesale in specified agricultural produce and they had been allotted shops, sheds and open space in Nawin Mandi Sthal for which rent is charged. All the basic amenities had been provided in the Nawin Mandi Sthal which was quite close to the city. The writ petitioners had been allotted the shops etc. on rental basis and at no stage any assurance was given that the shops, godowns or sheds would be given to the writ petitioners on hire-purchase basis. At the outset, it was made clear to the traders that the Mandi Samiti was giving the shops, godowns and sheds on lease for which rent would be charged. It was denied that anywhere in U. P. a different policy was adopted or that shops or godowns had been given by the Mandi Samiti on hire-purchase basis. Regarding the letter of the Director allegedly sent in 1995, it was submitted that being a policy matter, it was the Mandi Parishad (Board) alone which could take such a decision and the Director had no authority to direct that the property of Mandi Samiti shall be given to the traders of agricultural produce, who are license holders, on hire-purchase basis. It was further submitted that the INspector General and Commissioner of Stamps, U. P. had sent a letter dated 24-10-2002 to the Director, Mandi Parishad, U. P. that the agreement which was to be executed between the Mandi Samiti (Committee) and the traders required to be registered and stamp duty in accordance with Article 35 of Schedule I (kha) of the INdian Stamp Act (as amended in the State of U. P.) had to be paid. It was after receipt of the said communication that the various allottees of the shops, godowns and sheds of the Mandi Parishad were informed to get the agreement (lease-deed) registered. It was specifically pleaded that the uniform policy of the Mandi Parishad (Board) was to give the shops, godowns and sheds to the traders of agricultural produce, who had obtained licenses, on lease on rental basis and not to transfer the property in their favour either on hire-purchase basis or otherwise. The High Court on 5-9-2003 summarily dismissed the writ petition by a brief order which reads as under : "heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 32 of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 before the Mandi Parishad. The petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, if a revision is filed the same will be decided expeditiously. ";