Allahabad High Court
Kisan Mini Modern Rice Mill And Foods vs Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti ... on 9 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)AWC1916
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sambhal, district Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the Mandi Samiti) had constructed three types of shops in the market area. They are in three classes 'A', 'B' and 'C'.
Class 'A' shop has four rooms attached with a Godown, bath-room and latrine.
Class 'B' shop has three rooms attached with a Godown, bath-room and latrine.
Class 'C' shop has only one room with no other facilities.
2. There is an Allotment Committee constituted by the Mandi Samiti for allotment of the shops to the dealers. The shops are allotted to the dealers on the basis of the amount of their annual turnover of last three years and the amount of market fee paid by them to the Mandi Samiti.
3. The petitioner was allotted shop No. 8 of Class 'B'. He moved an application dated 21.6.2001 to the Mandi Samiti for allotting him Shop No. 11 in Class 'B'. A provisional allotment was made in favour of the petitioner allotting him Shop No. fi11, i.e., the shop in question instead of B-8 shop. The petitioner alleges that he was doing his business in that shop since he had taken over the shop in pursuance of the allotment order dated 21.6.2001.
4. The Secretary of the Mandi Samiti informed the petitioner to vacate the said shop B-11 and changed to a Class 'C' shop.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition with the prayer that respondent No. 1 Mandi Samiti wants to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in dispute i.e., B-11 shop by use of force and that respondent No. 1 be restrained from changing his shop from Class 'B' to Class 'C' without following the procedure prescribed by law and he may not be evicted from the shop in question. This Court passed a time bound order dated 31.5.2002 directing that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the shop in question. The said order was extended by order dated 6.6.2002 but thereafter was vacated by order dated 19.7.2002.
6. In the present writ petition, it is averred that the applications were invited from the dealers who wanted shops in the Mandi Samiti through advertisement fixing 27.9.2001. It is stated that the petitioner also filed an application on 27.9.2001 in pursuance of the advertisement for allotment of Shop No. B-11 in question in his favour oh the ground that his turnover for the year 2000-2001 was Rs. 46,88,200 on which he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,17,205 as market fee. It was also mentioned that he had not done any business in the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The aforesaid application of the petitioner is appended as Annexure-S.R.A.-l to the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit.
7. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have entered into a bargain under which the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti is allotting the shop in question to M/s. Buland Akhtar Nadim Akhtar, respondent No. 2, in exchange of consideration. The petitioner alleges that at the time of the allotment, his application dated 27.9.2001 aforesaid was not placed before the Allotment Committee and on the contrary, a forged application purporting it to have been filed by the petitioner was placed for allotment of Class 'C' shop forging the signatures of the petitioner. He states that if the signatures on the vakalatnama of the writ application and his alleged application dated 27.9.2001 are compared, they are different and this would prove that the signatures on the application for allotment of Class 'C' shop is forged. He further contends that the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti placed wrong figures of turnover and the market fee paid by the petitioner which has resulted in injustice to him. He submits that the turnover of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001 was Rs. 46,88,200 on which he had paid a market fee of Rs. 1,17,205 whereas the turnover of respondent No. 2 for three years was Rs. 1,94,864 and market fee paid by him was Rs. 4,871,60 which shows that there was very wide difference both in turnover as well as market fee paid. Hence, the allotment of Class 'C' shop consisting of only one room to the petitioner is wholly illegal. The order of allotment of Type 'C' shop has been filed as Annexure-4 along with the counter-affidavit. The counsel for the petitioner states that relying on wrong figures, respondent No 2 was allotted Shop No. B-11 whereas the petitioner was allotted a Class 'C' shop. It is submitted that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the order dated 11.4.2002 allotting Class 'C' shop to the petitioner was not available but since it has been filed along with the counter-affidavit, an amendment application was filed challenging the aforesaid order. This application has been allowed by the Court.
8. This Court will not go into the disputed questions of fact under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as to whether the signatures of the petitioner on the application dated 27.9.2001 are forged or not. The relief claimed by the petitioner depends upon the question whether he had made an application for allotment for Class 'C' shop or Class 'B' shop. Different types of shops are allotted on the basis of turnover and market fee and admittedly the petitioner has not done any business in the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The writ petition in this regard is vague inasmuch as there is no detail in respect of respondent No. 2 regarding the turnover and market fee paid by him in last two years, hence this petition cannot be decided on the materials and facts before this Court.
9. The Courts are required not only to do justice but also to prevent injustice. In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 that if the petitioner makes a representation before him within a period of one month from today, the same shall be decided expeditiously after hearing all the parties concerned and considering the turnover and the market fee paid by the petitioner and respondent No. 2. After the decision, the matter shall be placed before the Allotment Committee and a decision within two weeks thereafter from its receipt will be taken by the said Committee for allotting appropriate shop to the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
10. No order as to costs.