- (1.) The petitioner firm M/s Kishori Lal Suresh Kumar, Anaj Mandi, Charkhi Dadri has sought to invoke the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Mandi Bhawan Sector 6, Panchkula and order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Executive Officer-cumSecretary, Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri, seeking direction to the respondents to allot him shop/plot at a reserve price out of the category (ii) being an old licensee.
(2.) Precisely, the allegations are that the petitioner is the licensee and carrying on business of commission agent/kacha arthiya in the notified market yard of Charkhi Dadri since 1987. The license issued to him was renewed from time to time till 31.3.2010. Previously the firm M/s Goyal Trading Company was working in the premises. However, due to partition of the joint family, the petitioner firm was created on 1.4.1987 and was allotted a separate license. The shop was divided into two parts of 9' x 45' each.
(3.) The old Anaj Mandi at Charkhi Dadri was de-notified and new Anaj Mandi came into being where old licensees of category (ii) were entitled to purchase shops/plots at reserve price in accordance with rules. The process of allotment commenced on 8.2.2008. However, it was postponed and re-commenced in June, 2009 as per notice (Annexure P/2). The petitioner submitted application on 6.7.2009 (Annexure P/3). However, vide memo No.699 dated 13.7.2009 (Annexure P/4), his application was rejected. The objections preferred by him were also dismissed on 25.7.2009 vide order annexure P/5. The appeal, annexure P/6 preferred by him was dismissed on 31.3.2010 vide order annexure P/7, on the ground of non compliance of rule 3 (i) (vi) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (for short, 'the Rules'). It is claimed that the petitioner firm was discriminated inasmuch as the case of M/s Chuni Lal Parmod Kumar which was on the similar footings was accepted vide order annexure P/9. As per category (ii) of the old licensees, if a shop has been divided into two parts and independently utilized by two independent licensees then both the licensees are eligible under the rules for allotment of two shops. The orders annexure P/5 and P/7 are illegal being without application of mind. The authorities did not make an independent enquiry and take into consideration that two independent firms were working in the same premises, divided by partition wall. Moreover, the resolution dated 25.2.2009 was also not taken into consideration. The impugned orders are discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of the rules.;