- (1.) The petitioners, who are working in New Vegetable Market, Bahadurgarh, have filed the instant petition for quashing Memo No. LA-II-2008/102121-56 dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P-12), whereby the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula (respondent No. 2 herein) had decided to auction the shop and booth plots, which were lying vacant in the New Apple, Cotton, Grain & Vegetable Market, Bahadurgarh, in the State. They have also challenged the order dated 14.3.2012 (Annexure P-22), vide which the Chief Administrator of the respondent Board had directed the Allotment Committee to consider the eligibility of the petitioners as on 6.4.2000 for allotment of the shop plots against 37 new plots which were carved out in the year 2008. The petitioners have further challenged the proceedings of meeting of the Allotment Committee, held on 7.8.2012, in respect of New Sabzi Mandi, Bahadurgarh (Annexure P-26), vide which all the petitioners were held to be ineligible as on 6.4.2000 for allotment of the shop plots. The petitioners seek further direction to the respondents to allot them shop plots under the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2000 Rules'), by considering their eligibility as on 2.1.2009, the date on which the 37 newly carved out shop plots were put to public auction. Earlier, the petitioners had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 21708 of 2008 seeking direction to the respondents not to auction the aforesaid plots. But during the pendency of the said writ petition, the aforesaid order dated 14.3.2012 (Annexure P-22) was passed and meeting of the Allotment Committee was held on 7.8.2012. Therefore, instead of allowing the petitioners to amend the said writ petition, they were permitted to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. Consequently, the instant writ petition was filed to challenge the orders passed during the pendency of CWP No. 21708 of 2008.
(2.) In the counter filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, the only contesting respondents, it is stated that when applications were invited for allotment of plots to the old licencees in the year 2000, petitioners No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 had applied for allotment of plots but were found to be ineligible while petitioners No. 3 and 11 did not apply and the balance plots have since been disposed of by way of open auction. Therefore, petitioners have no claim to be considered for allotment of shop-sites on reserve price.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record.;