- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 3 (2B) of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rule, 2000. Vide the aforesaid Rule, the Marketing Board has prohibited the sale and purchase of agricultural produce in booths for the reason that there is no space in front of the booths to display the agricultural produce.
(2.) Mr. Partap Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 relies upon a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tek Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008 AIR(P&H) 124, wherein the legality of such Rule has been upheld.
(3.) Keeping in view the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court, we find that the present writ petition challenging the legality of the Rules has no merit. Consequently, the same is dismissed for the reasons recorded therein.;