5249/2013 in LPA No 2130/2011, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Said Letters Patent Appeals thereby confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeals.
Therefore, respondent No 5 shifted as a tenant to Shop No 12 in the year 2007 and applied for change of address to the new shop, however, the same was rejected and respondent No.
The High Court by a common judgment and order dated 26.09.2011 allowed Writ Petition No 5886/2009 filed by respondent
No 5 and directed that the licence of respondent No 5 be renewed. By the impugned common judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said letters patent appeals and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that right to use the shop and/or having a licence and right to use the platform are not directly related.
Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred in confirming the allotment of the auction platform in question, in favour of original respondent
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
No 5.
It is further submitted that even at the time of submitting the application for fresh licence/renewal in the year 2009, respondent No 5 submitted an affidavit dated 20.08.2009 deposing that he will not claim any right over the auction platform. It is vehemently submitted that after the interim order dated 05.08.2016 was passed by this Court, the representation made by the appellant herein has been dealt with and considered by the Market Committee and a detailed reasoned order has been passed by the Market Committee rejecting the representation of the appellant. That as such there is no policy and/or rule pointed out on behalf of the appellant that a licence holder is entitled to carry on the business and/or allotment of the auction platform just adjacent to and/or in front of shop occupied by him. That the appellant was issued the licence on 16.07.2007 whereas the sheds collapsed on 10.06.2007, therefore, the appellant was not in possession of the shed earlier to the collapse on 10.06.2007 and therefore, his case is not covered under the aforesaid policy. It is submitted that thereafter on constitution of the Committee the allotment of the shed was made to respondent No 5, being a licencee of the Committee and possession holder of the shed prior to the collapse of the shed. However, the appellant is unable to establish and/or show any specific rules and/or regulations with respect to the allotment of the shed/auction platform and that too, just adjacent and/or in front of shop in which a particular person is carrying on the business.
List the petitions after four weeks.”
Even the representation was permitted to be made to consider on the statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that there are certain other platforms which are available and to that, this Court observed that if that is so, respondent Nos. 4 In the representation/order, it is specifically mentioned that earlier the shed collapsed on 10.06.2007 and thereafter, the shed was reconstructed in the year 2009 and a policy decision was taken pursuant to the directions issued by the Secretary, Agriculture, that at the first instance, all those allottees, who were allotted sheds for working prior to collapse of sheds on 10.06.2007 were entitled to be allotted shed/space as they existed on the date when the shed collapsed. Once that is done and in case legally bonafide applications are more than the number of available space, draw of lots will be held in the presence of Chairman, Market Committee, Joint Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Board and applicants who desire to be present. Under the circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to any preferential treatment and/or allotment dehors observance of principles and guidelines issued by the Secretary regarding allotment of the auction platforms. 7 Now so far as the allotment of the auction platform in favour of respondent No 5 is concerned, it is required to be noted
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
that according to the Market Committee and respondent No 5, respondent No 5 has been holding the licence and doing business since 1970, whereas the appellant herein got the licence on 16.07.2007. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in absence of any specific rule/regulation to the contrary and when the allotment of the sheds is made as per the principles/guidelines of the Secretary, Agriculture, reproduced hereinabove, and in absence of any specific rule in favour of appellant(s), right to claim the allotment just in front of his shop and/or adjacent to the same and when the allotment in favour of respondent No 5 is made as per the policy and guidelines, both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court have rightly held against the appellant and have rightly dismissed the writ petition(s) and appeal(s). No costs.
Case Title: GURJIT SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS. (2023 INSC 199)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004826-004828 / 2022
