- (1.) This application (IA No.2/19) seeking leave to appeal is preferred by the applicants to file special appeal against order dated 2.8.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by inter alia the first respondent herein seeking implementation of order dated 5.12.16 passed by the respondent-Director Agriculture Marketing Board, has been allowed.
(2.) As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5.12.16 has decided bunch of writ petitions, however, the application seeking leave to appeal is preferred by the applicants only against the order impugned passed in S.B.C.Writ Petition No.6320/17.
(3.) A perusal of the order impugned reveals that while declining the prayer of the applicants herein to implead them as party respondents, the learned Single Judge permitted them to intervene in the matter with the observations as under: " As per the Policy of 2013, the allotment in new Mandi is firstly required to be made in favour of the persons, who are having shops in Paota Mandi as per Clause 3(7) of the Policy of 2013. In case some plots remain vacant, they are to be allotted to other dealers, operating in Paota mandi, but who are not having shops. True it is, that the applicant and eight persons have been shown in the list of provisional allottees, but the fact remains that they are not having any shops in the Paota Mandi, for which their cases are required to be considered under clause 3(8) of the Policy of 2013. As such, applicant has no rival or competitive claim vis a vis the petitioner, who has vied for allotment under clause 3(7) of the Policy. Merely because the petitioner's failure in the present writ petition may result in the applicant's success, it does not give them a right to oppose their case as a respondent. The State as well as Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti are already there, as respondents to defend their stand. The applicant cannot be heard to support/substantiate the stand of the State. That apart, the list aforesaid is provisional, is evident from the fact that the State has taken a stand that due to inadvertence, 9 persons' claim could not be reckoned. The respondent No.3 has admitted that in light of the interim order passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, they were required to keep one shop for each of the petitioners vacant/reserved. In this view of the matter, it is clear that nine shops, which ought to be earmarked or kept vacant for the petitioners, could not be earmarked and the applicant and persons similarly situated to the applicant have been provisionally depicted in the list, which hardly creates any right in their favour. It is to be noticed that the provisional list of merit, has a clear stipulation that the allotment in furtherance of the list will be subject to the present group of writ petitions. Had the respondents obeyed the interim order of this Court in the letter and spirit, surely, their names would not have been there in the list. Hence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to implead the applicant as a party respondent. However, since the rights of the applicant may be affected by any order passed in the present writ petitions, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the applicant to intervene." ;