Jai Singh Sekhon, J. - (1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No 2932, 7896, 8945, 3069 and 4348 of 1988 as these are directed by reluctant traders unwilling to move their places of business from the old grain markets to the new grain markets created under the provisions of section 7 (2) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Act,').
(2.) We will refer to the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 2932 of 1988 for understanding the legal controversy. The petitioners in this Writ Petition are commission agents carrying on the business of purchase and sale of agricultural produce in their shops located in the old grain market, Madlauda. since the year 1936. This private market was created by one Seth Chatterbhuj by carving out some plots for shops on his land Thereafter it was allegedly expanded in the year 1949 by aforesaid Seth Chatterbhnj. It is alleged that it was a fully developed grain market having all the modern facilities like the Banking Service tea shops, hotel etc. In the year 1964, vide notification issued by the then State of Punjab both these old markets were declared as market yards for the purpose of sale and purchase of the agricultural produce. The market committee then took over the control over all the transactions transacted in both these markets. The petitioners-commission agents have been regularly paying the market fee to the Market Committee and it is averred that the committee has earned over three cores of rupees from the market fee but the Committee, had hardly spent a few lakhs in developing this area. The Committee on the other hand, is alleged to have given this money to the State Government illegally The present State Government of Haryana issued notification under sub section (2) of section 7 of the Act on May 7, 1985 Annexure P-2 declaring the new grain market as principal market yard and the old grain market as sub market yard Thereafter, vide notification dated February 29, 1988 Annexure P-1 issued under section 7 (2) of the Act, the State Government abolished the sub market yard in the area of old grain market which has resulted in challenging the validity of the above referred notifications as well as vires of section 7 of the Act by invoicing the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on multifarious grounds. The Market Committee allotted only 24 plots to 24 commission agents in the new grain market but the remaining commission agents were not allotted any such plots It is further averred that the Market Committee had faded to develop the new grain market whereas in the old grain market, all the requisite facilities were available.
(3.) In Civil Writ Petition No. 3069 of 1988. the creation of new rain market at Samalkha and abolishing the sub-market yard in old market known as Dalmia Ganj Mandi vide similar notification is being challenged. Civil Writ Petition No. 4348 of 1988 involves similar challenge to the creation of new grain market at Tarori after abolishing the old grain market known as Subhash Mandi and Pursarth Market.;