A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) The various petitioners who are carrying on the business of commission agents of fruits in the town of Moradabad are aggrieved by a notification dated 21-1-1983 issued by the State Government under Section 7 (2) (b) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (the Adhiniyam for short) declaring that the wholesale transactions of food-grains, vegetables and fruits shall be carried on only at a Market Complex situate in village Majhola within the principal Market Yard of the Moradabad Market Area as well as by the notices issued consequent thereto by the respondent-Mandi 'Samiti asking the petitioners to shift their business to the newly developed Market Complex at Majhola.
(2.) The first ground urged was that the respondent-Mandi Samiti is estopped from asking the petitioners to shift their business to the aforesaid Market at Majhola The contention was based on the allegation that the petitioners were carrying on their business in a Market situate within the city at Amroha Gate called the Amroha Gate Bazar for a long time which is an ideal market from every point of view for the sort of business in which the petitioners were engaged. When the petitioners came to know of the project of the construction of a new marketing complex at Majhola by the respondent-Mandi Samiti they protested whereupon the Mandi Samiti asked the petitioners to purchase for themselves a separate plot of land which would be declared as a Sub-Market Yard by the Mandi Samiti under the provisions of the Act and if the petitioners constructed a separate market for themselves they would not be shifted to the newly developed Market Complex at Majhola. Acting on this assurance the petitioners jointly purchased a piece of land in a newly developed area of Karaula in the district of Moradabad. Subsequently, Mandi Samiti went back on its word and started pressing the petitioners to shift their business the new Market Complex at Majhola. The petitioners thereupon approached the Minister concerned who asked the Director of Mandi Samiti to look into the matter. The Director of Mandi Samiti in his turn asked the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti to inquire into the matter. It is next urged that the Secretary vide his letter dated 9-4-83 asked the petitioner to submit the necessary documents regarding the purchase of land at Karaula. In short the allegation is that all these authorities were a soring die petitioners all along that they would declare the land purchased by the petitioners at Karaula as a Sub-Market Yard but instead of sticking to their assurance the petitioners were being asked to shift to the Market Complex at Majhola.
(3.) These allegations have been categorically denied by the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti in the counter affidavit. The Secretary asserts that no such assurance was given to petitioners. Nor had the petitioners purchased the land at the instance of the Mandi Samiti or on the assurance that the Market proposed to be constructed by them at Karaula would be declared a Sub-Market Yard. It is further asserted that as is usual with the traders whenever there is a move to ask the traders to shift to the marketing complex constructed by a Mandi Samiti, the petitioners too were attempting to avoid shifting to the newly developed market at Majhola. They were pressing the Mandi Samiti to permit them to carry on business at a place of their choice, namely, at Karaula to which Mandi Samiti did not agree. Thereupon, they approached the State Government through the Minister. The Minister merely forwarded the matter to the Director who in turn forwarded the papers to the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti. Be that as it may, the Mandi Samiti did not give any such assurance to the petitioners. The Market Complex constructed by the Mandi Samiti at Majhola is ideally suited to the business of the. petitioners and the allegations to the contrary are wrong.;