- (1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 19.5.2011 (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 19.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) rejecting the claim of the petitioner-firm for allotment of a site citing Rule 3(iv) and (vi) of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (for short "the 2000 Rules").
(2.) The issue has arisen in the background of re-allocation of the old Licensees of Category-II/Commission agents running their businesses in the Notified Market Yard which is to be de-notified for shifting to the new Mandi. The allotments are claimed in the New Mandi. The claim for allotment, however, has been rejected by the Chief Administrator for two fold reasons; firstly, that when the applications were invited for allotment from Class II Commission agents, the petitioner-firm had already sold their shop in the Old Mandi, and therefore, had lost their right to claim plot on reserve price in terms of the rehabilitation scheme; secondly, the turn over of the petitioner-firm for the financial year 2008-09 did not meet the criteria required under the rules. Rule 3(i), (iv) and (vi) of the 2000 Rules reads as follows: "3 (i) in the markets where some auctions have already been held, the allotment shall be made on the basis of the average price of the last auction; (iv) Such licensees must have paid market fee of at least Rs. 5,000/- annually for the last two years. Provided that in the case of a category (ii) licensee who does not pay market fee himself, his annual turn over during the last two years should be at least rupees two lack fifty thousand." (vi)- The category (ii) licensee must have an independent premises, either own or rented, in the old Mandi to be denotified. In case there are more than one licensee in the same premises, the oldest firm or the one which is agreed upon in writing by all the firms occupying the same premises, shall be eligible."
(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief Administrator on 19.8.2010, the petitioner firm carried a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Agriculture Department which has remained unsuccessful. Both the reasons of rejection were affirmed by the Revisional Authority and it was held and recorded that in the financial year 2008-09 the turn over of the petitionerfirm was nil and the shop in the old mandi (Market) had been sold by the owner vide sale deed executed on 11.8.2008 and after sale, the new firm had came into existence and was carrying on the business of commission agents category II after transferring/taking license on the same demised shop. It was also noticed that the turn over for the year 2009-10 was nil which confirms the alleged fact that the petitioner firm was not doing business after the sale of the shop.;