Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jay Kisan Traders vs Krishi Upaj Mandi And Ors on 26 November, 2013
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13678/2009. Jay Kisan Traders, Ramganj Mandi Vs. The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ramganj Mandi & Ors. Date of order:- November 26, 2013. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahesh Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Government Counsel. Shri Inderjeet Singh for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23/10/1999 (Ann.3) by which license of the petitioner has been cancelled and he was debarred from trading from the premises of Krishi Upaj Mandi Ramganj Mandi.
When the matter was listed before the court on 15/1/2010, it was informed that principal amount that was due against petitioner was Rs.1,01,794/- with interest of 12% upto date, a sum of Rs.3,15,720/-.
This court upon hearing learned counsel for parties directed on 15/1/2010 that if petitioner pays the principal amount along with interest as per bye-laws within a period of one month then, petitioner may be permitted to carry out the business from the shop in dispute. In case the petitioner is allowed to work in the shop in dispute, the petitioner will pay the allotment fee / rent as per policy of the respondents and will continue to pay the Mandi Fee accrued on the transactions, if carried out.
Shri Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has further paid Rs.1,00,000/- and has approached the respondents on number of occasions but he has not been apprised the total amount. It is argued that the respondents are demanding interest at exorbitant rate of 12%, which is on higher side. Shop of the petitioner is still lying vacant and has not been allotted to anybody else but the petitioner has not been permitted to carry out the trade.
Shri Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since license of the petitioner has been cancelled for the reasons of default on his part, there is no question of now permitting him to carry out the trade. Despite the order of this court dated 15/1/2010, he has not paid the total due amount within one month as directed. The complete details of the outstanding amount was given by the respondents in reply to the application to the petitioner and therefore it is wrong to say that he was not apprised of the total amount due.
Having regard to the facts aforementioned, it is directed that if petitioner within a month from today, deposits the entire arrears or whatever nomenclature including mandi fee with the respondent Mandi Samiti with interest @9% p.a., his license shall be revived and he shall be permitted to carry out the trade from the mandi premises. If petitioner fails to avail the benefit of this order, respondents would be at liberty to auction the shop in accordance with the bye-laws.
With that direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil/82 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed Anil Kumar Goyal Sr.P.A. Cum J