Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Fal Sabji Kreta Vekreta Vyapar vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 December, 2011
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
pIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JUDGMENT 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3714/2009 (Fal Sabji Kreta Vekreta Vyapar Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6746/2010 (M/s Bhagwan Sahai Parewa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3855/2009 (Bhartiya Phal Avam Sabji (MASAKHOR) Vyapar Sangh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) 4. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4075/2009 (M/s Jaipur Zila Fal, Phool & Sabzi Vikreta Sangh Vs. State of Raj.& Ors.) 5. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.9010/2009 (Rajkumar Joshi & Anr. Vs. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 6. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5648/2010 (M/s Dhan Singh Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 7. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5649/2010 (M/s Tirupati Balaji Fruit Traders Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr.) 8. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5650/2010 (M/s Vaishnav Fruit Agency Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 9. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5651/2010 (M/s Jai Durga Fruit Traders Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 10. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5652/2010 (M/s Jhaman Das Kungumal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 11. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6273/2010 (M/s Roop Chand Tanwar & Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 12. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6274/2010 (M/s Kishore Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 13. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6275/2010 (M/s Jai Kishan & Brothers Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 14. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6276/2010 (M/s Tahal Ram Govind Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 15. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6277/2010 (M/s Rajendra Kumar Narang & Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 16. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6278/2010 (M/s Jai International Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 17. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6279/2010 (M/s Shyam Traders Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 18. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6551/2010 (M/s Poonam Fruit Co. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 19. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6552/2010 (M/s Green Fruit Co. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 20. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7095/2010 (M/s Pradeep Kumar Jaikishan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 21. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.16589/2011 (M/s Sana Fruit Co. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order: 08/12/2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Sunil Samdaria ] Mr. Bharat Saini ] Mr. A.K. Sharma ] Mr. Ajay Gupta ] Mr. Ashok Mehta ] Mr.Atma Ram Meena ], for the petitioner-Sangh. Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG, for the State. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.G.C. for respondent No.3.
REPORTABLE The above petitions involve identical questions for the adjudication by this Court and are being decided by this common order. Facts in SBCWP No.3714/2009 titled Fal Sabji Kreta Vekreta Vyapar Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are taken as the lead case for the adjudication of issues as they arise in this bunch of writ petitions.
The petitioners-Sangh has filed these petitions with the following prayers :
(i) to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing & setting aside the decision dated 29.09.2008 and order dated 28.01.2009 whereby commercial rate of Rs.15,000/- per sq. mtr. have been prescribed for allotment of shops in Terminal Market Muhana in village Sukhiya.
(ii) to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing & setting aside clause 2(7) of allotment policy of 2005 which prescribes / spells out the DLC rates to mean commercial DLC rate declaring it to be illegal & invalid being contrary to the allotment letter dated 20.11.1999 and declaration of law by Hon'ble Apex Court & Hon'ble High Court.
(iii) to issue an appropriate/writ/order/direction declaring the different parameters for determining the rates for allotment of shops to phase-I and phase-II allottees & other category such as producers as illegal, invalid & ultravires.
(iv) to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction declaring the clause 7(4) of allotment policy of 2005 as discriminatory and thus in valid.
(v) to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the respondents to allot the shops in Terminal Market Muhana situated at village Sukhiya at the rate of Ra.1393/1689 per sq. mtr. in conformity with the benign object of establishing the Mandi and in sequel there to permit the member of petitioner sangh to deposit the allotment money in installment in tuen and in line with allotment notices dated 08.07.2008.
Facts necessary to be noticed for the adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner-Sangh is constituted of members engaged in selling of fruits and vegetables. All the members of the petitioner-Sangh are licencees under the Rajasthan Agriculture Market Produce Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1961'). The petitioner-Sangh is aggrieved of the alleged illegality and invalidity of the decision dated 29.09.2008 whereby the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fruits and Vegetables), Terminal Market Muhana, Jaipur decided that the allotment of shops in the Terminal Market, Muhana would be with reference to a commercial DLC rate of Rs.15,000/- per sq. mtr. and the further order dated 28.01.2009, passed by the Directorate, Agriculture Produce approving the decision of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fruits and Vegetables), Terminal Market Muhana, Jaipur taken in its meeting dated 29.09.2008. The petitioner-Sangh submits that as a consequence of the aforesaid decision, the minimum price for allotment of shops in the Terminal Market, Muhana on the basis of concessions applicable under the allotment policy of 2005 formulated by the State Government would be Rs.7,500/- per sq. mtr (50% of Rs.15,000/-) and Rs.11,250/- per sq. mtr. (75% of Rs.15,000/-) respectively for different categories of applicants seeking allotment of shops. It is submitted that the decision to fix such an exorbitant price for the allotment of shops is grossly illegal, unfair, unjust, invalid and sufferes from patent arbitrariness and discrimination.
The petitioner-Sangh also challenges the legality & validity of clause 2(7) of the allotment policy of 2005 whereby base rates for allotment have been spelt out to mean commercial DLC rates of Market Area or in the absence thereof, commercial DLC rates of nearest region/area. It is submitted that the prescription of commercial DLC rates for allotment of shops in Muhana Mandi yard is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Labh Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Panjab [1998 (5) SCC 207] as also the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of M/s Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2002 (3) WLC 207 whereby the Hon'ble Courts are stated to have held that Mandis are not established to generate revenue and the rates of shops to be alloted to those engaged in the business in the Mandi should be reasonable.
The petitioner-Sangh has also challenged the alleged discrimination between the members of the petitioner-Sangh who are seeking allotment of shops in phase-II in the Muhana Mandi and those who have been alloted shops in phase-I. It is submitted that allottees in phase-I were allotted shops at the rate of Rs.1,689/- per sq. Mtr. while those in phase-II of the same Mandi are being alloted shops at Rs.7,500/- per sq. mtr. or Rs.11,250/- per sq. mtr. as per their category.
The further case of the petitioner-Sangh is that assuming that the allotment policy of 2005 is valid, the manner of its implementation is absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as for the fixing of the rates for the allotment of shops the DLC commercial rates of an area 2.5 km from Muhana Mandi yard (Muhana bus stop) has been taken into consideration overlooking the commercial DLC rates in the vicinity of the Mandi area at village Sukhiya as there is no prescribed commercial DLC rate for Muhana Mandi itself. It has been submitted that commercial DLC rate at village Sukhiya where the Mandi is situate is Rs.5,000/- per sq. mtr. and that rate ought to have been taken into consideration in terms of clause 2(7) of the allotment policy 2005 and not the rate of Rs.15,000/- per sq. mtr. which the rate relevant to the Muhana bus stand which is 2.5 km away from the Muhana Mandi yard.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed both by the State Government as also the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fruits and Vegetables), Terminal Market Muhana.
Counsel for the State Government has submitted that the allusion to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this High Court referred to above is misdirected. It has been submitted that in the case of M/s Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a situation where the shops were being put upto auction and the existing displaced traders/licencees from the Lal Kothi Mandi owing to the denotification of the said Mandi under the Act of 1961 who were required to shift to the new Mandi Yard because of congestion in the old Mandi area were being put to a disadvantage by being required to participate in the auction and in these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court had held that the shops in Mandi area could not be auctioned for revenue generation which alone was not the object of establishing the Mandi Yard. It has been submitted that in these circumstances, the State Government was directed to constitute a committee to formulate a policy for allotment of shops in the Muhana Mandi and in pursuance to the aforesaid direction, a committee was indeed constituted and in consultation with the Mandi Samiti as well as representatives of the traders, the allotment policy of 2005 was framed to fulfill the objects of the Act of 1961. It has been submitted that the case of Labh Ram (Supra) dealt with a situation where the traders were required to move under complusion from the existing Mandi complex to a newly constructed Mandi complex and were being required to purchase the shops within the new Mandi complex through auction. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that requiring the existing licencees in the old Mandi complex to take part in the auction and compete with new businesses seeking to purchase shops in the new Mandi complex would be unreasonable and would work discriminatingly against such existing licencees. It is submitted that in this factual context the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Government had an inherent obligation to provide sufficient accommodation to pre-existing licencees and allotment to such licencees ought to be made at reasonable rates.
In the context of the background facts of the aforesaid two decisions, the State Government has submitted that even while plots in the Muhana Mandi Yard have to be alloted on a reasonable rate, yet the State Government cannot take upon itself any unjust loss and make allotments not compulsorily to be availed by applicants traders plainly engaged in pure commercial activities without any public obligation. It has been submitted that an adequate price has to be charged to offset the cost incurred in making the new Mandi scheme. It has been submitted that in the present context, the reference point for determination of allotment price is the DLC commercial rates of the area in the vicinity where actual commercial activities are being under taken and this is the mandate of the allotment policy 2005. It has been submitted that reference to the commercial DLC rate in the allotment policy cannot said to be arbitrary since the business in the Mandi undertaken by the members of the petitioner-Sangh will be unequivocably commercial. It has further been submitted that as per clause 2(7) of allotment policy 2005, in view of the fact that commercial DLC rate for the Muhana Mandi yard had not been fixed, the most appropriate proximate area of commercial activities was taken into consideration to fix the referal DLC commercial rate on which, under the extant policy, the allotment is to be made at 50% or 75% to various applicants in terms of their respective eligibility. It has been submitted that the fixation of the rate of the allotment at 50% or 75% of the DLC commercial rate at Muhana bus stand is thus based on a rational criterion which is wholly just and reasonable and consequently, the challenge to clause 2(7) of the allotment policy of 2005 is without substance deserving of rejection.
The State would further submit that the reserve price for allotment charged from traders and other who shifted from Lal Kothi Mandi Yard was at the rate of Rs.1,689/- per sq. mtr. in terms of the formula given out for the said purpose in the allotment policy of 2005, more particularly clause 5 thereof, as these traders/licencees constituted a special class in themselves consequent to the de-notification of the Lal Kothi Mandi Yard owing to which such licencees had to, of necessity and without any option, shift to the new Mandi area if they were continue in business at all. It has been submitted that members of the petitioner-Sangh do not constitute the same class and it is an admitted position that the members of the petitioner-Sangh are under no similar compulsion and not prohibited by any action of the State from carryinig out their respective businesses from their existing locations in Mandi area. It has been submitted that consequently the case of the members of the petitioner-Sangh stands on an entirely different footing than the traders / licencees of the Lal Kothi Mandi Yard and no argument / submission founded on discrimination can be made and be sustainable.
It has been submitted that the DLC rate as intimated by the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sanganer, Jaipur with regard to the commercial rate at the bus stand Muhana was Rs.15,000/- per sq. mtr. and the same was taken as the most appropriate rate in view of the area most appropriately approximate to the Mandi where commercial activity was being carried out.
The State Government has further submitted that the Government had acquited 138 Hectares of land for the construction of Terminal Muhana investing Rs.54 crores in acquisition, construction and development of the market area and in fact a further financial assistance to the tune of Rs.22 crores has been requested by the Mandi Samiti. It has been submitted that even with the present rate of Rs.15,000/- per. sq. mtr. which with appropriate concessions works out to be Rs.7,500/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.11,250/- per sq. mtr. respectively for different categories of allottees and is sought to be charged in lieu of allotment, the Mandi Samiti would only be generating Rs.52.81 crores whereas the cost for development would be Rs.74 crores. It has been submitted in this context that the question of making profits from alleged exorbitant prices does not arise and the State and the Mandi Samiti are not even able to cover the expenses incurred in setting up the Muhana Mandi Yard. It has been submitted that while the traders / licencees of Lal Kothi Mandi were covered under clause 5 of the Allotment Policy of 2005 with reference to phase-I, the members of the petitioner-Sangh seeking allotment in phase-II of the Muhana Mandi yard are covered under clause 7 and constitue a distinct and separate group without any homogeneity to claim any parity in law. The further submission of the State is that, if at all, the State can only be faulted for fixing extremely low rates for allotment of shops in phase-I without reference to the cost of establishing the Muhana Mandi yard and the mere fact of a low rate in phase-I formulated in special circumstances cannot justify a similar low rate for phase-II or justify laying of a writ petition for fixation of lower prices from which the members of the petitioner-Sangh can profiteer.
The counsel for the State has further submitted that the members of the petitioner-Sangh have filled the form and applied for the shops knowing fully well the price which was to be charged and they are thus estopped from setting up a challenge to the price so fixed for allotment of shops. It is submitted that not a single penny from the funds to set up the Muhana Mandi Yard has been diverted for any purpose other than the development of the market area which development only enures for the benefit of the traders / licencees such as the members of the Sangh who work out of the Mandi. It has been submitted that the members of the petitioner-Sangh are seeking to reap a windfall through these petitions because the cost of the plots is much higher in the market than the cost even being charged by the respondents and were it no so, the members of the petitioner-Sangh as prudent businessmen well versed in the market would never apply for the plots.
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fruits and Vegetables), Terminal Market Muhana, Jaipur has filed a separate reply, but substantially reiterated the facts as stated in the reply of the State Government.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the respondents and perused the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto.
The counsel for the petitioner-Sangh has submitted that clause 2(7) of the Allotment Policy 2007 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to the set aside in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of M/s Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra (Supra). It has been submitted that in the aforesaid judgment relying on the judgment of Labh Ram & Ors. (Supra), this Court had set aside the auctioning of shops in the Mandi area by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Simiti on the ground that the purpose of establishing the Mandi was to facilitate the object and purpose of the Act of 1961 and not merely to generate a revenue stream (i.e. profits). Counsel for the petitioner-Sangh submits that the spirit of the judgment in the case of M/s Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra (Supra) was that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti should eschew a commercial approach in setting up a Mandi yard and not seek to profit out of making allotment of plots to the licencees / traders / agriculturalist therein. Counsel submits that the clause 2(7) of the Allotment Policy 2005 refers to commercial DLC rates and the reference to the word commercial is indicative of the object of the State Government to profit from fixing a high price for the allotment of shops and this flies in the face of the spirit of the judgment in M/s Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra (Supra) and clause 2(7) therefore is liable to the set aside.
Counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG as also for the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fruits and Vegetables), Terminal Market Muhana, Jaipur, Mr. Inderjeet Singh would submit that the challenge to clause 2(7) of the allotment policy 2005 is premised on a misreading of the judgment of M/s Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra (Supra). It has been submitted that no doubt it has been stated by the Division Bench of this High Court that plots in the Mandi area should be allotted without any element of profit motive yet the judgment in issue was also quick to safeguard and protect the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis from pursuing losses. It is submitted that the clause 2(7) is determinative only of the manner in which prices are to be fixed and nothing more and that even on the present price so fixed the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is unable to cover the cost for the acquisition of the land and the development thereof as a Mandi providing infrastructure for carrying out the business of sale and purchase of agricultural commodities. It has been submitted that as against the cost of development of Rs.74 crores, even at the prices which have been presently fixed for allotment of plots, the receipts are likely to be a mere Rs.52.8 crores and thus far short of the development cost. It has been submitted that consequently fixation of price at a lower level would only be a further loss of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti no writ can or issue therefor. A reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Labh Ram & Ors. (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is open to the Government to fix up any rate above the reserved price for such licensed dealers, of course such fixation should not be at unreasonable rates. Counsel would therefore submit that unles the rates at which the allotments have been made in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti are unreasonable, there can be no interference by the courts in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that no rejoinder to the reply both by the State Government and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has been filed and the factum of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti still being short on the recovery of cost for setting up Muhana Mandi Yard remains un-controverted. For these reasons, it is submitted that no illegality can be found with clause 2(7) of the allotment policy 2005 or the fixation of rates for allotment of shops in phase-II of the Muhana Mandi.
Having considered the submissions of the counsel, I am of the view that the clause 2(7) of the allotment policy, 2005 is only details a method of determination of the allotment policy for the recovery of cost and price of plots to be allotted to prospective applicants. The test is whether the allotment price is unreasonable and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti profits out of the allotment of plots in Muhana Mandi. From the facts on record, it is apparent that the far from profits from allotment, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samti, respondent No.2 is not even recovering the cost of development of Muhana Mandi yard and in this view of the matter, the rates for allotment of plots in phase-II cannot be said to be unreasonable. Consequently, I find no substance in the challenge to the validity of clause 2(7) of the allotment policy 2005.
The further argument of the counsel for the petitioner-Sangh is that the manner of determination of price for allotment of plots in the Muhana Mandi yard even with reference to clause 2(7) is faultly, hence illegal and thus liable to be set aside by this Court. It is submitted that clause 2(7) of the allotment policy 2005 states that DLC commercial rate shall be the rate as fixed / determined by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti itself for the Mandi in issue or in the absence thereof the commercial rate at the point nearest to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in issue. Counsel submits that the Muhana Mandi yard is situate in village Sukhiya where the commercial DLC is Rs.5,000/- per sq. mtr. and therefore in terms of clause 2(7) the rate which could be fixed for allotment of shops in Muhana Mandi yard with reference to the nearest commercial DLC rate should have been Rs.5,000/- per sq. mtr. Counsel for the petitioner-Sangh submits that as against the requirement of clause 2(7) of the allotment policy, 2005, the respondent-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has determined the DLC commercial rates for the Mandi with reference to the DLC commercial rate for Muhana bus stand which is at a distance of 2.5 km from the Muhana Mandi yard. Counsel submits that the determination is thus wholly arbitrary, contrary to the language of clause 2(7) of the allotment policy and therefore liable to be set aside.
Counsel for the State as also the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti would submit that village Sukhiya is a small hamlet without any serious commercial activity and thus a wholly irrelevant reference point. Consequently reference was made to the most appropriate and proximate area of commercial activity as par (if at all) with the commercial activitiy in the Muhana Mandi and this was the Muhana bus stand area where the commercial DLC was Rs.15,000/- per sq. mtr. and this rate was justly taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of the DLC commercial rate under clause 2(7) of the allotment policy 2005. It has been further submitted that the main gate of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is situated on the Muhana Sanganer road and the whole of the Muhana Mandi yard constituting one complete whole is accessed quickly and conveniently therefrom. Consequently, the rates have been determined with regard to the ease and speed of access to the Muhana Mandi also and it is universal knowledge that ease and quality of access to an area more importantly a commercial area and the infrastructure of the area is not only relevant but determinative of the cost of real estate. Counsel would thus submit that the petitioner-Sangh seeks equation of applies and oranges in submitting that the underdeveloped Sukhiya village DLC commercial rates should be the reference point for determination of DLC commercial rates of an area which is the biggest Mandi in Asia easily and quickly accessed through wide roads and which boasts of extremely good if not the best infrastructural facilities for business.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner-Sangh as also the respondents, I am of the view that the object of clause 2(7) in the context of the allotment policy 2005 was to determine the rates adequate for the recovery of the cost of development of Muhana Mandi yard. It is not unreasonable on part of the respondent No.2, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to take a reference to the commercial DLC of Muhana bus stand which is the most appropriate and proximate area where some serious commercial activity is carried out. Village Sukhiya is a small village with little or no commercial activities and the DLC commercial rate at village Sukhiya would not be a proper reference point for the determination of the rates at which allotment of plots in the Muhana Mandi yard was to be made. Clause 2(7) of the allotment policy 2005 has to be construed reasonably and liberally and so construed nothing arbitrary in the determination of the DLC commercial for the Muhana Mandi yard can be found. A contrary view would entail huge loss to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and the State Government with a corresponding windfall for the allotees engaged in pure business and there is thus no warrant for a literal interpretation of clause 2(7) of the allotment policy overlooking the intent and purpose of the clause. For these reasons, I thus find no force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner-Sangh that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in the determination of the rates for allotment of shops in Muhana Mandi yard on a misconstruction / misapplication of clause 2(7) of the allotment policy 2005.
The further argument of the petitioner-Sangh was that the rates of Rs.15,000/- per sq. mtr. even with the concession thereon entailing an effective rates of Rs.7,500/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.11,250/- per sq. mtr. for the two categories of applicants envisaged in phase-II was wholly discriminatory as allotments were made in phase-I at the maximum rate of Rs.1,689/- per sq. mtr. Counsel for the petitioner-Sangh submits that it is unconceivable that the rates in the area could have risen so steeply over a period of few months subsequent to the date of allotment of shops under phase-I. It is submitted that the last allotments in phase-I were made in early 2008 during the time when the advertisement for allotment in phase-II of Muhana Mandi was published. It has been further submitted that even while those licencees who had no shops in Lal Kothi Mandi were allotted plots in phase-I at the rate of Rs.1,689/- per. sq. mtr., the members of the petitioner-Sangh even while being shop owners in the market yard have been allotted plots at an exorbitant price of Rs.7,500/- per sq. mtr. or Rs.11,250/- per sq. mtr. depending on their categorisation.
Counsel for the State as also the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti would submit in response that the submissions of the petitioner-Sangh on the issue of discrimination are completely misplaced. It is submitted that for one, allotment in phase I has been made only to those class A brokers licencee and traders who were doing business in the Lal Kothi Market Yard and were dislocated owing to denotification of the said yard. It has been submitted that no allotment in phase-I has been made to any person who was not adversely affected by the denotification of the Lal Kothi Market Yard. It has been further submitted that in any event of the matter, the rate for the allotment of plots to the erstwhile class A brokers, traders and licencees of the Lal Kothi Market Yard has been made on the price determined as per clause 5(1) of the allotment policy 2005. In terms of the allotment under clause 5(1) aforesaid the rate worked out as Rs.1,689/- per sq. mtr. It has been submitted the said rate was the special rate under the allotment policy of 2005. Counsel would submit that the case of the members of the petitioner-Sangh falls more particularly under clause 7 which deals with a separate and distinct clause. It has been submitted that in absence the homogeneity, no parity with the erstwhile class A brokers, traders, licencees of Lal Kothi Market Yard can be claimed by the members of the petitioner-Sangh. It has been submitted that in any event of the matter, the allotment policy 2005 is not under challenge and hence would be operative for the purpose of allotment of plots to the members of the petitioner-Sangh.
Having considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner-Sangh as also the respondents, I am of the view that as the allotment policy 2005 is not under challenge and in fact has been considered without adverse comment by this Court in the case of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Ors. Vs. M/s Ahoka Oil Indus. & Ors. [2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 94]. Under the Policy of 2005, the petitioner-Sangh can lay no claim to allotment with reference to clause 5(1) thereof and consequently the efforts to set up a case with reference to the rates so determined under the said clause are absolutely misdirected. The case of the petitioner-Sangh has to be considered in terms of clause 7 of the allotment policy 2005. So considered, the allotment to the members of the petitioner-Sangh is to be made with reference to DLC commercial rates determined under clause 2(7) of the allotment policy 2005. Clause 2(7) has already been upheld earlier in this order. The inexorable effect would be that the members of the petitioner-Sangh are liable to pay for the allotment of plots in Muhana Mandi yard a rate with reference to the DLC commercial rate of Rs.15,000/- per sq. Mtr. as duly discounted with reference to the eligibility of the respective applicants.
The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are without force and liable to be dismissed.
Stay application is also dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J.
MS/