- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the temporary list dated 4 -8 -2014 for allotment of plots for construction of shops in the Krshi Upaj Mandi Yard Bharatpur (hereinafter 'the New Mandi') to A class brokers/ traders engaged in trade of agricultural produce mustard. The case of the petitioner is that he is working in the old Mandi for the last several years although granted permanent licence as an A Class broker on 2 -4 -1998 by the Mandi Samiti. The Mandi issued advertisement dated 25 -5 -2012 inviting applications for allotment of plot in the New Mandi yard to eligible candidates dealing in mustard in terms of the State's Immovable Property Allotment Policy, 2005 (Policy of 2005), thereunder in the first phase A category brokers/ traders engaged in the business of agricultural produce (mustard) were entitled to allotment of plot for a shop in the New Mandi. The petitioner applied along with supporting documents and requisite fee as demanded by respondents. However in the temporary list of candidates circulated by the Mandi on 4 -8 -2014, the name of the petitioner was not included. It has been submitted that objections were filed by the petitioner on 13 -8 -2014 to the temporary list, he however received no favourable response. Contrarily the Mandi vide letter dated 19 -8 -2014 informed that the petitioner was not included in the temporary list because his turn -over in the year 2010 -11 was NIL. Objection to letter dated 19 -8 -2014 have been of no avail. It has been submitted that the petitioner's name has not been included in temporary list arbitrarily even though the petitioner was eligible for allotment of plot in first phase of the New Mandi Yard. And even while the petitioner has been wrongly and illegally excluded from the temporary list, the respondents have included various persons in the temporary list who are not eligible. This according to the petitioner tantamounts to invidious discrimination.
(2.) REPLY to writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents. It has been submitted that the advertisement dated 25 -5 -2012 intended to shift eligible brokers dealing in mustard to the New Mandi Yard. In terms of clause 4(2) of the Policy of 2005 eligibility for allotment of a plot is dependent upon the applicant having a turn over as defined in clause 2(11) in the three years immediately preceding the year of the advertisement. Clause 2(11) of the policy defines turn over to mean sale of the agricultural produce. It has been submitted that on scrutiny of petitioner's application it transpired that pertaining to the year 2009 -10, relevant to the allotment of plot, even though the petitioner claimed that he had sold mustard of Rs.35,429/ -, yet no VAT return for the year 2009 -10 in support of his claim was filed with the application. In the circumstances the petitioner's VAT returns for the year 2009 -10 were collected from the Sales Tax Department, whereupon it was found that the petitioner had shown NIL turnover for the said financial year. A copy of the VAT return 2009 -10 has been filed with the reply to writ petition as Annexure R -2/1. It has been then submitted that the petitioner deposited mandi fee Rs.724/ - on 6 -9 -2010 (2010 -11), but on enquiry it was found that the said fee was deposited on purchase of mustard and the purchased mustard was not sold in the said financial year. Consequently in terms of clause 2(11) of the Policy of 2005, it did not constitute turnover for the purpose of supplying eligibility for allotment of plot in the New Mandi Yard in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25 -5 -2012.
(3.) IT has however been then submitted that all is not lost for the petitioner and he yet can be considered for allotment of a plot for a shop in the New Mandi Yard IInd phase in terms of clause 4(4) of the policy, albeit he will have to suffer a higher allotment rate for the same as provided in the policy. It has been submitted that it is thus evident that the petitioner does not satisfy the essentiality as detailed in clause 4(2) of the policy of 2005 for allotment in the Ist phase on not having a turnover for all the three years immediately preceding the year of issue of advertisement dated 25 -5 -2012, and was accordingly informed on 19 -8 -2014. It has been finally submitted that aside of not being eligible for reasons detailed above, the petitioner's case is also liable to be dismissed on account of an attempt to wrongly show forged turnover in 2009 -10 to somehow (unsatisfactorily) satisfy the eligibility criteria for allotment of plot in the New Mandi Yard. Mr. D.S. Jadaun, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no question with regard to petitioner's ineligibility for reasons of not having requisite turnover in the year 2009 -10 can be agitated in defence to the writ petition as the only reason of rejection conveyed to the petitioner by respondents under letter dated 19 -8 -2014 was for his being ineligible for reason of NIL turnover in the year 2010 -11. It has been submitted that now it cannot be argued that petitioner did not have the requisite turnover also in the financial year 2009 -10. It is further submitted that other candidates not eligible have also been included in the temporary select list and hence petitioner be similarly treated.;