S.S. Grewal, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition M/s Sheo Parshad Rajiv Kumar Modi and 35 others, who are licencees and as Commission Agents carrying on their business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce in their shops in the grain market since 1960, have prayed for quashing advertisement Annexure P -l whereby auction of plots in the New Mandi Township, at Sirhind has been fixed for 19.3.1991.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they had submitted application Annexure P -2 on 11.3.1991 to the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department to the effect that the old Mandi is a planned Mandi and plots were allotted to the licencees who are running their business in their premises since long and that in case licencees are not allotted alternative sites in the New Mandi on 'No profit No loss' basis, they shall be compelled to purchase the plots in open auction on higher rates which would contravene the fundamental rights of the licencees. It was further pleaded that in case the auction takes place the petitioners would be compelled to shift their business to the new Mandi even if they failed to buy plots in competition with other non -licencees on much higher rates; that the petitioners cannot be up -rooted without providing alternative sites; that in a welfare State while making plans for establishment of New Mandi the State Government should not act with a motive of profit earning and that the petitioners who are licencees should be allotted plots first and the remaining be auctioned. It was also pleaded that the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners is violative of Articles 14,19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 2 in its written statement raised preliminary objection that the writ petition was highly belated. The process of sale of the plots/ spaces in the New Mandi began as far back as in the year 1986 and allottees have taken possession and have either raised or are in the process of raising structures upon them and to disturb the process of formation of New Mandi at this belated stage would cause great harm. It was admitted that the petitioners are licencees carrying on their business in the old Mandi. However, it was pleaded that the old Mandi is not a planned Mandi and is grossly inadequate for the needs of the farmers and the public; that the formation of the new Mandi is on the request of the farmers, on modern lines with all amenities and facilities; that the business of the mandi is being carried out in an area of the Municipality situated in an over crowded area of the town. It was also pleaded that the petitioners do not have any prior claim to the plots in the New Mandi which are being sold in open auction and that the petitioners are at liberty to compete in open auction and purchase the plots and space and that the petitioners as old licencees have no legal or preferential right to get the plots by allotment. Nor there was any legal obligation on the part of the respondents to provide alternative sites to the petitioners. It was next pleaded that the petitioners have no such fundamental right and none of the fundamental rights of the petitioners has been violated and that nobody had interfered with their ownership in the premises in the old Mandi.
(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 3 in their joint written statement pleaded that the plea of allotting plots on reserve price has been thoroughly examined at all levels of the Government at different times and it was considered more suitable to sell the plots in open auction only. It was denied that by auctioning the plots in new Mandi the petitioners would be up -rooted or that they have any legal right for allotment of plots; that the policy of the State Government is only to sell the plots in open auction so that equal opportunity to purchase plots is provided to the public at large. It was further pleaded that there is no policy of the State Government to allot the plots in the new Mandi; that the petitioners cannot be allotted plots and they can purchase the same in open auction, which in no way is unconstitutional and that the demands of the petitioners for allotment of plots is neither legal nor justifiable. It was also denied that the motive of the State Government was profit earning. Since the Government is determined not to preserve the monopoly of the Commission Agents with a view to free the farmers from the exploitation/malpractices remoart in the trade carried out in old Mandi where there is no space for unloading of food -grains and that the old Mandi is out -dated. In rainy season water collects up to knee level in the old Mandi which results in damaging the produce of the poor farmers. It was also pleaded that the petitioners are not entitled to get plots in new Mandi as they would not be removed from their existing shops in the Old Mandi or compelled to shift their business in the New Mandi only and mere sale of plots by auction in the new Mandi the existing sub -yard or the old Mandi would not be abolished. It was denied that the action of the respondents to sell the plots in public auction is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution of India.;