Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8267 OF  2016 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 11247 OF 2016)

DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD …APPELLANT

VERSUS

HAKUMAT RAI           ...RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH  KUMAR  GOEL,  J.

1. Leave  granted.   This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the

judgment and order dated 29th January, 2016 in LPA No.535 of 2015

passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the Division Bench of the

High  Court  affirmed  the  order  of  the  Single  Judge  directing  the

appellant herein to allot a shop to the respondent- writ petitioner in

Gazipur Mandi and also issue of category ‘B’ license to him under the

provisions  of  Delhi  Agricultural  Produce  Marketing  (Regulation)  Act,

1998.

Page 2

2

2. The above order came to be passed on the writ petition filed by the

respondent.  The averments in the petition are: The writ petitioner was

a  commission  agent  of  fruits  and  vegetables  at  Phool  Mandi,  Darya

Ganj, New Delhi.  The appellant- Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board

was a statutory body to regulate the marketing of agricultural produce

and had declared certain areas as market areas.  In the year 1998, the

said  Mandi at Darya Ganj was de-notified and the commission agents

were to be shifted from there.  License of the petitioner was not renewed

as the market  was shifted to Okhla where a new market was to be

constructed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).  The petitioner

was included in the list of eligible persons but was not successful in the

draw of lots held in 1987. Those who were allotted shops at Okhla were

shifted from Darya Ganj in the year 1992.  Thereafter, the petitioner

made a representation in the year  1994 for some alternative site  at

Keshopur Mandi, Tilak Nagar, Delhi which was closer to his residence

as he was not successful in the draw of lots held in the year 1987.  In

the year 1999,  the name of  the petitioner was recommended by the

Secretary, APMC but he was not allotted a shop.  In the year 2002, the

petitioner again represented that as no shops were available in Okhla,

he  may  be  accommodated  at  new  wholesale  market.   In  2003,  the

Agenda Item No.8 for allotment of shop to the petitioner was approved

Page 3

3

on 18th December, 2003 but he was not allotted a shop.  In 2008, the

petitioner  represented  for  allotment  of  shop  at  Gazipur  market  and

again  in  the  year  2011,  he  sought  allotment  of  shop  at  Keshopur,

Okhla, Gazipur or any other market.  Earlier, he had approached the

High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.547 of 1993.  He was given liberty

to file representation.  He also relied upon the order dated 24 th January,

2003  in  another  case  in  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.790  of  2000.   In

substance,  the  case  put  forward  by  the  petitioner  was  that  he  was

running his business at Darya Ganj since long and as the said market

had been de-notified, he was entitled to be allotted an alternative shop

at Gazipur or any other newly developed market.   

3.   The writ petition was opposed by the appellant by submitting

that ‘B’ Category license can be granted only to the persons owning a

shop  in  the  market  area/  yard  of  the  APMC.   Alternative  shops  in

Gazipur  market  were  being  given only  to  those  who were  bona fide

licensees of APMC, Shahdara.  Thus, the petitioner was not eligible for

allotment of shop in the said market.  The learned Single Judge allowed

the  writ  petition  on  the  ground  that  the  petitioner  was  waiting  for

allotment  of  shop  since  the  year  1985  and  was  entitled  to  be

accommodated  at  Gazipur  particularly  when no  other  markets  were

Page 4

4

coming up in the near future.  The observations of the learned Single

Judge are :  

“6.1 I have asked Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent  as  to  whether  the  petitioner’s  case  was considered by the Board.  Mr. Sinha informs me that the petitioner’s  case  was  rejected,  as  the  petitioner  was  not found eligible.   6.2 On being queried further, as to when, a decision, to reject the petitioner’s claim, was taken by the Board.  Mr. Sinha candidly stated that there was no reference to the same in the counter affidavit.  This apart, the record would show  that  no  document  has  been  filed,  which  would demonstrate that the petitioner’s case was rejected.   6.3 On  the  contrary,  there  are  documents  on  record which show that the APMC has approved the case of the petitioner, and it is the Board which has not moved further in the matter.   6.4 Undeniably,  under  the  Delhi  Agricultural  Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998, APMC is an adjunct of the Board.  Therefore, the recommendations of the APMC, should  carry  the  necessary  weight.   The  petitioner  has waited  long  enough  for  the  relief  in  the  matter.   The genuineness  of  the  case  and/  or  the  eligibility  of  the petitioner for allotment is not in doubt as is recorded in APMC’s letter dated 12.8.1999.  7. Therefore,  given  the  facts  and  circumstances obtaining in  the  case,  according  to  me,  the petitioner  is entitled to the reliefs as prayed.   7.1 Mr.  Sinha  says  that  the  directions  sought  for allocation of a shop are not feasible as, under the policy, shops in Gazipur can only be allotted to those persons, who were  carrying  on  business  at  Shahdara.   In  my  view, present  piquant  situation  is,  a  creation,  of  respondent’s own making.  7.2 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been waiting  patiently  for  relief  since  1985,  if  not  earlier,  the respondent will have to make necessary accommodation for the petitioner.  This is especially so, since, Mr. Sinha says that  there are no other “mandis”,  which are coming up, except  one,  in  Gazipur,  in  the  near  future.   To  ask the petitioner  to  wait  for  any  further,  will  be  a  travesty  of

Page 5

5

justice.   Accordingly,  necessary  directions  are  issued  in terms of the relief sought for by the petitioner.   7.3 In view of the above, the respondent will allot a shop to the petitioner in the Gazipur Mandi, and thereafter, also issue a category ‘B’ License to the petitioner.”       

4. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the above direction

as follows :  

“11. We may also deal with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.  The contention is that as the respondent’s name did not figure in the draw of lots, he became ineligible.  It  was put to learned counsel  for the appellant  to  show  if  there  is  any  policy  that  an  eligible person seeking an alternate place at Okhla Mandi would become ineligible in case he did not succeed in the draw of lots.  Learned counsel has not been able to show any such policy  on record.   The  contention is  clearly  without  any merits.  Regarding the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order would cause confusion inasmuch  as  the  shops  which  are  being  constructed  at Gazipur are only meant for those who have been working at Shahdra Mandi, the impugned order rightly states that this is a piquant situation which is a creation of the appellant’s own making.”  

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  

6. The  main  contention  raised  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  is  that

allotment  of  shop  in  a  notified  market  area  is  not  a  legal  right.

Accommodation  in  the  notified  area  depended  upon  the  number  of

shops available.  Further, vide notification dated 2nd September, 2014 it

Page 6

6

was notified that no license will now be required for the marketing of

fruits  and  vegetables  in  Delhi  except  in  the  notified  market  areas.

Thus, the appellant could continue to carry on his business at  Phool

Mandi, Darya Ganj.  If he was not to be displaced from the place of his

business,  subject  to  his  having  right  to  occupy  the  shop  from the

premises where the business was being carried on, the appellant was

under no obligation to allot an alternative shop to rehabilitate him.  The

case of the writ petitioner was considered from time to time, but since

the number of claimants was more than the shops available, he could

not be allotted a shop. The High Court had directed allotment of shop to

him  merely  on  the  ground  that  he  was  waiting  from  a  long  time.

Moreover,  in  view of  the  notification dated  2nd September,  2014,  no

license is  required for  the writ  petitioner  to  continue at  the present

place of his business.  The said notification is as follows :  

“Now,  therefore,  in  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by sub-section (I) and (4) of Section 4 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce  Marketing  (Regulation)  Act,  1998,  and  in supersession of notifications Nos.F.50(3)/77/DAM(i) dated 14.01.77,  F.6(II)/78-DAM/7371-92  dated  21.11.78, F.8/4/83-DAM/  MR  (i)  dated  01.12.92, F.8(2)/85-DAM/MR/Vol.II/420  dated  29.01.2001  and F.8/4/83-DAM/MR (ii)  dated 01.12.92, in so far  as they relate to Fruits and Vegetables mentioned in the schedule to  the  above  Act,  the  Lt.  Governor  of  National  Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to declare that  regulation of marketing  of  fruits  and  vegetable  mentioned  above shall  cease  beyond  the  markets/  market  yard/ sub-yards  of  the  respective  marketing  committees

Page 7

7

namely APMC MNI Azadpur, APMC Keshopur and APMC Shahdara, with immediate  effect,  and henceforth market area  of  these  committees  with  respect  to  fruits  and vegetables shall have the following boundaries…”

(emphasis added)

7. Learned counsel for the respondent- writ petitioner supported the

impugned order but submitted that there are available surplus shops at

Gazipur market and the petitioner was willing to offer 10 per cent over

and above the highest auction bid.  He has filed a copy of the letter

dated  29th June,  2016 in  response  to  an  application under  the  RTI

which is as follows :  

“1. There  are  a  total  No.  of  354  ‘B’  Category  license holders  in  Gazipur  Mandi,  out  of  which,  309  license holders have been allotted new shops.  Out of the above 21 license  holders  are  in  waiting  list  for  shops  under construction.  2. As many as 9 blocks are constructed and ready in Gazipur Mandi.  It has 288 ‘B’ category shops.  In 1 block 32 shops of ‘B’ Category are raised.   3. In block 10 which is under construction, 21 shops of ‘B’ category have already been allotted.   4. All  the  shops  under  construction  and  also  those which are already constructed are under the Jurisdiction of the Office of the Parishad.  The remaining shops are also under the jurisdiction of the Office of Parishad.”   

8. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel

for  the parties,  it  is  clear  that  the respondent-  writ  petitioner  is  no

longer to be displaced from his existing place of business.  He was duly

considered for the available shops in Okhla with the persons displaced

from  Phool  Mandi,  Darya  Ganj  who  were  eligible  for  an  alternative

Page 8

8

allotment of shops, but he could not succeed.  We have also noted the

stand of the appellant that Gazipur Mandi shops are for the allotment of

shops to persons who have been displaced from Shahadra, in which

category the case of the respondent does not fall.  It is not the case of

the writ petitioner that he has been discriminated against or otherwise

denied fairness in action.  Thus, strictly speaking, the writ petitioner

has no legal right for allotment of a shop at Gazipur.  However, since

his  claim  has  been  under  consideration  since  long,  he  could  be

considered with other eligible applicants, for allotment of shop, subject

to a surplus shop being available.    

9. In these circumstances, we dispose of  this appeal by modifying

the impugned order to the effect that the case of the respondent, along

with all eligible persons, be considered, subject to the availability of a

shop, within six months, in accordance with law.        

………………………………………………J. ( V. GOPALA GOWDA )

………………………………………………J. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

NEW DELHI;  AUGUST 24, 2016.

Page 9

9

ITEM NO.1A-For JUDGMENT      COURT NO.8             SECTION XIV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A. No........./2016 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  11247/2016 DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD              Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS HAKUMAT RAI                                     Respondent(s) Date : 24/08/2016 This petition was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today. For Petitioner(s)  Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.                      Dr. Monika Gusain,Adv.

Mr. Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Adv.                       For Respondent(s)                      Ms. Madhusmita Bora,Adv.               

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.

Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed

Reportable Judgment.   

(VINOD KUMAR JHA) AR­CUM­PS

(MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER

   (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)