M/S Parkash Chand Mehar Chand vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 February, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Parkash Chand Mehar Chand vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 February, 2013

Bench: Surya Kant

CWP No. 20236 of 2011                                        -1-



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


1.          CWP No. 20236 of 2011


M/s Parkash Chand Mehar Chand

                                                      ..... Petitioner

                  Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                      ..... Respondents

2.          CWP No. 6127 of 2011


M/s Brar Trading Company

                                                      ..... Petitioner
                  Versus

State of Punjab and others

                                                      ..... Respondents


                                          Date of decision: 14.2.2013

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

PRESENT: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner
         (in CWP No. 20236 of 2011).

            Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner
            (in CWP No. 6127 of 2011).

            Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. AG, Punjab.

            Ms. Gagangeet Kaur, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4
            (in CWP No. 20236 of 2011).

            Mr. M.S. Virk, Advocate for
            Dr. (Ms.) Puneet Kaur Shekhon, Advocate
            for respondents No. 2 to 4 (in CWP No. 6127 of 2011).
 CWP No. 20236 of 2011                                            -2-



SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 20236 and 6127 of 2011 as the question of law involved in both the cases is similar in nature. The brief facts are extracted from CWP No. 20236 of 2011.

The petitioner-firm was granted licencee under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 21.4.1998 to do the business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce in the Old Grain Market at Rampura Phul. The petitioner-firm thereafter obtained second licence on 20.4.1998 for Sub-Market Yard at Chauke.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the value of the business carried out by the petitioner in Sub-Market Yard at Chauke can be added in the total value of its business for the relevant years to determine its eligibility for allotment of plot at concessional rates in the New Grain Market at Rampura Phul? While the petitioner's case is that sub-yard is an integral part of the principal market at Rampura Phul and both the businesses are to be clubbed together, the respondent-Authorities in the reply-affidavit have controverted the plea taken by the petitioner, as according to them, the proof of requisite business is to be determined on the basis of returns in Form-M, J-Form, I and H-Register, which are issued separately for the Principal Market Committee and the Sub-Market Yard.

We find from the record that earlier in terms of Rule 17 (5) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1962 (for brevity 'the Rules'), a separate licence was required for establishing or continuing the business at more than one places which necessarily means a separate CWP No. 20236 of 2011 -3- licence was required for the sub-yard also. Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 17, however, has been omitted vide Punjab Government notification dated 30.3.1999. Thereafter, we are informed that the licence issued for the Principal Market Yard is valid to carry on business in a sub-yard also.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Board still relies upon proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules which, inter alia, says that "the plots will be allotted to the licenced dealers of old market which are denotified resulting in displacement of such licenced dealers on free hold basis for conducting business of purchase or sale of agricultural produce in the new grain market-----". She has also referred to Rule 3 (iii) of the Rules ibid.

In the absence of an express exclusion clause in the Rules for not taking into account the business undertaken by a licenced firm in a sub-yard under the same licence which is granted for the old denotified grain market, we are of the considered view that the question of eligibility of firms like the petitioner requires re-determination by the rule making Authority, namely, the State Government in active consultation with the Punjab Mandi Board. Consequently and for the afore-stated purpose, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the order dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by the State Government in exercise of its revisional powers under the Act is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture, to take a uniform policy decision in prior consultation with the Punjab Mandi Board and then determine the eligibility of the petitioner or other similarly placed firms. The needful shall be done as early as CWP No. 20236 of 2011 -4- possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.




                                                  ( SURYA KANT )
                                                      JUDGE


February 14, 2013                                 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu                                                  JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court