- (1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 01.11.2007 (Annexure P-3), dated 20.01.2009 (Annexure P-4) and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a shop to the petitioner at reserve price at the New Sabzi Mandi, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, in lieu of his premises in the old/de-notified Sabzi Mandi.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the Punjab Mandi Board or the Market Committees used to sell plots in the new markets by way of open auction in terms of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots), Rules 1990 [hereinafter referred to as "Rules"]. Rule 3 of the said Rules, however, provides for allotment of plots to those licensed dealers of old markets at a reserve price who, had been uprooted on account of de- notification of the erstwhile markets. The Market Committee, Ludhiana, in order to establish a new Sabzi Mandi, invited applications from licensees of the old Sabzi Mandi, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana, through a public notice dated 22.12.2004. The petitioner also applied for a plot claiming itself to be a tenant in possession of shop No. 42 of M/s. Devi Dayal Kahan Chand. The respondent No. 3, vide his impugned order dated 01.11.2007 (Annexure P-3), found that the petitioner was not in possession of any shop but it was in occupation of a Phar/Platform and, thus, rejected his application. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 12 of the Rules was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 with the following observations: "9. From the above Rule it is clear that the possession of an independent premises in the old de-notified Mandi as an owner or a tenant is a pre-requisite for making allotment of plots in the new Mandi. Here premises means a shop and certainly not an open space meant for display and auction of agricultural produce. The documents produced by the appellant clearly show that the appellant firm has been operating from Phar 42-A in the Old Sabji Mandi, Ludhiana. The appellant has failed to substantiate its claim that he has been operating from any shop possessed by him. Neither before us any document was produced which could have proved the possession over a shop. As mentioned before, separate plot has already been allotted to M/s. Devi Dayal Kahan Chand in lieu of shop NO. 42-A. The present claimant has not filed any counter claim that it was he and not M/s. Devi Dayal Kahan Chund who was operating from shop No. 42-A in his possession from which he was operating. He had no other space which could be leased out to the present appellant. The spirit of Allotment Rules is to protect the livelihoods of those commission agents who have been legitimately doing the business of sale and purchase of agricultural goods from their shops in the old Mandi and who face threat to their business in the event of closure of the Mandi and its movement to new destination. They can move their men and material but not their shops which become redundant in the old Mandi. This does not apply to those Commission agents who are simply operating from Phars or from Sheds constructed on the Phars. They have no facility of rest/relaxation for the farmers who bring their produce to the Mandi. In the event of closure of the Mandi they have simply to move their weighing scales to the new Mandi. Thus. with the de- notification of old Mandi, no threat to their business can be imagined. They were operating from the Phar and can do so in the new Mandi. There is thus, no doubt over the finding of the Allotment Committee that the appellant did not have any shop in the old fruit & vegetable market as required under Rule 3(1) of the Allotment Rules. The impugned order is found to be perfectly all right and correct in the light of provisions of Allotment Rules. No case has been made out for our intervention in it. The appeal is liable for dismissal. and the same is accordingly dismissed. "
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if the petitioner was in possession of a Phar/Platform, it has to be equated with a shop and the petitioner should have been allotted a plot in the New Sabzi Mandi at a reserve price. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an income tax payee and has a telephone connection installed in the premises in his possession. A reference has also been made to an order passed by respondent No. 2 in the case of M/s. Suraj Trading Company, Ludhiana, decided on 07.07.2008 (Annexure P-8) to allege discrimination.;