Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Seth Trading Company vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2022
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2386/2022
1. M/s. Seth Trading Company, Through Its Proprietor Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Rajmal, Aged 54 Years, Shop B-10, Naveen Krishi Mandi Yard, Shri Surajpal Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bhinmal, Jalore.
2. M/s Madan Trading Company, Through Its Proprietor Madanlal Parmar S/o Vijaji Aged 48 Years, B-6, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
3. M/s A.k. Trading Company, Through Its Proprietor Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Rajmal, Aged 44 Years, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
4. M/s Pukhraj Om Prakash, Through Its Proprietor Manish Kumar S/o Shayam Sunder Agarwal, Aged 40 Years, Shop B-8, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
5. M/s Kshemkari Trading Company, Through Its Proprietor Bhomaram S/o Punmaji Age 48 Years Shop B-13 Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
6. M/s Kanungo Trading Company, Through Its Proprietor Pukhraj S/o Kapurchand, Age 53 B-17, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
7. M/s Soni Trading Company, Through Its Proprietor Hansraj Age 50 Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti- Bhinmal, Jalore.
8. M/s Krishna Kumar Mishrimal, Through Its Proprietor Jetharam Parmar S/o Tejaji, Age 65 A-8, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
9. M/s Kolchand And Company, Through Its Proprietor Kolchand S/o Tolaji Age 65, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
10. M/s Swastik Trading Company, Through Its Proprietor Pukhraj S/o Kapurchand Age 53, C-6, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
11. M/s Hastimal Sankalchand, Through Its Proprietor Manju Mehta W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Aged 60 Years, B-7, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
12. M/s Dinesh Kumar Champalal Mehta, Through Its Proprietor Dinesh Kumar S/o Champalal, Aged 62 Years, (Downloaded on 15/02/2022 at 08:46:19 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-2386/2022] B-4, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
13. M/s Shivshakti Trading Company, Through Its Proprietor Vachnaram S/o Lakhmaram Age 35 Year, B-16, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
14. M/s Bhanwar Lal Chandmal And Company, Through Its Proprietor Bhanwar Lal, Aged 62 Years, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
15. M/s Dinesh Kumar And Company, Through Its Proprietor Babulal S/o Shivraj, Aged 93 Years, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
16. M/s Ramdev Trading Company, Through Its Proprietor Bagdaram S/o Modaji Age 50 Years, Shri Surajpal Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, Jalore.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Government Of Rajasthan, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.
2. Krishi Uapj Mandi Samiti-Bhinmal, District Jalore Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sravan Sainee JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 15/02/2022
1. By way of present joint writ petition filed by 16 shopkeepers of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bhinmal, notices dated 30.11.2021, issued to the petitioners, have been challenged.
2. Mr. Sainee, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the tin-shed in question was erected by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti on its own and no request to construct the same was made by the petitioners.
(Downloaded on 15/02/2022 at 08:46:19 PM)(3 of 3) [CW-2386/2022]
3. Learned counsel argues that the impugned demand is being raised purportedly on the basis of order dated 27.01.2009, passed by the Division Bench at Jaipur Bench of this Court in SAW No.1944/2008, vide which the order dated 22.09.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.3833/2006 has been affirmed.
4. Learned counsel has produced certified copies of both the orders for perusal of the Court. On perusal of the order dated 22.09.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.3833/2006, it is clear that in that case the shed in question was erected at the behest of the association of traders, whereas no such request was made by the petitioners.
5. It is also argued that the development of the mandi yard and construction of shed etc. is otherwise duty of the Agricultural Market Committee.
6. The matter requires consideration.
7. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within six weeks.
8. Meanwhile, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the petitioners for recovery of the amount mentioned in their respective notice(s) dated 30.11.2021.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 30-skm/-
(Downloaded on 15/02/2022 at 08:46:19 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)