Moolchand v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

2. The appellant invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issue of a command to the first respondent to consider the appellant as a deemed licencee or in the altemative grant a licence to the appellant on the address of the de-notified Mandi at Chowakhandi Road, Tilak Nagar LPI\ 276/2011 Page 1 of[7] 2011:DHC:16749-DB h and further issue a direction to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee ('APMC'), the third respondent herein to allot the vacant shop No.21 to the appellant under the rehabilitation scheme on the rates charged earlier from the allottees.

3. It was put forth before the writ Court that in 1987, a decision was taken to shift the commission agents and wholesalers from Chowkhandi Road, Tilak Nagar Subzi Mandi to Keshopur Mandi. 99 shops were to be constructed for commission agents (B category licence holders) and 107 shops for wholesalers at the Keshopur Mandi. Prior to initiation of process of shifting the shops to Keshopur Mandi, a survey was conducted by the APMC with regard to the existing commission agents. Name of the appellant found place at serial No.26 in the survey conducted in the year 1987-88, but despite the same, his prayer for allotment of an alternative space at Keshopur Mandi was rejected.

4. The appellant preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner approached the writ Court, but the learned single Judge declined to grant the relief on the ground that the petitioner had no evidence such as electricity bills, water bills etc. to substantiate the factum that he was carrying on the business from 21-A, LPA 276/2011 Pagel of[7] Chowkhandi Road, Tilak Nagar. The plea that the petitioner should be treated at par with M/s. Sant Raj Ram Singh also did not find favour with the appellant. It is contended by Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent Nos.[2] and 3 have waived production of the electricity or water bills and in fact they were never asked. It is urged by him that his case was rejected solely on the ground that he was not a licencee in respect of the said market and never carried on business. It is contended by him that the said conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, which has been given the stamp of approval by the leaned single Judge, is incorrect. He has drawn our attention to page 33 (Annexure A-1) to highlight that an application for licence was filed and deposit was made on 16th November, 1988. Learned counsel has invited our attention at page 73, which is the letter dated 24th April, 2009 issued by the Secretary, APMC. Be it noted, the said letter has been issued under the RTI Act, 2005. We think it appropriate to reproduce the said letter in entirety:- "Reference you application dated 9-4-2009 on the above noted subject. Relevant information pertaining to this Marketing Committee is given as under: Ans.1. Yes. Ans.2. Yest but the licence fee deposited on 16-11-88 nor on 16-12-

88. Ans.3. LPA 276/2011 Page[3] of[7] SNo Name of Break Period Grant of Licencee Lie.

1. Vasist & 1993 to Feb 10-8-98 Co. 1998

2. Gain chand 1992-93 to 10-8-98 Kishan Lal March 1998 &Co.

3. Kasturi Lal 1989 to Jan. 10-8-98 Darshan 1998 Lal

4. Devender 1993 to Jan. 10-8-98 Kumar & 1998 Co.

5. Kartar Sigh 1989 to Jan. 10-8-98 Rajesh 1998 Kumar

6. Vijay 1991 to Dec 10-8-98 Kumar & 1996 Co.

7. Sant Raj 1988-89 to 9-7-99" Ran Singh. 1999 Except 23-

4.96 to 31-7-

5. On a perusal of the aforesaid letter, it is quite vivid that the licence fee was deposited on 16th November, 1988. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn inspiration from the letter dated 25th January, 2001 issued by the Committee. The said letter has been brought on record at page 191 of the paper book. In paragraph 5 ofthe said letter it has been stated as follows:- LPA 276/2011 "5. That the firm has worked for 10 years or so from 81 onwards and has paid an amount of Rs.8281/- as market fee. The applicant firm has requested for allowing him to re-start his business as Page[4] of[7] ~ stopped to work due to fire incident. The permission was not granted for starting the business as the appeal was pending before the Chairman, DAMB. It may further be stated that there were some other firms which did not work for some time and there was break in business due to one reason or the other but the office of the Board considered most of those cases except one. This case may also be considered. However, comments are being offered but the relevant record is not available. However, photocopies of the correspondence which took place is also being enclosed pertaining to the documents such as photo-copy of the verification certificate from the Office of Joint Director-cum-Controller of Weight & Measures, Delhi, Photo-copies of the Market fee paid from time to time. Certificate from the Subzi Mandi Commission Agents Association. It is evident that the firm was working and for some time the firm has not paid market fee and the case was sent to C.O. for recovery of Rs.1827.29 and the firm has deposited a sum of Rs.600/- vide receipt no.54 dated 30-12-93 the same is also enclosed & which clearly proves that the firm has worked & photo-copies of the Market fee paid by the firm from time to time are also enclosed."

6. Be it noted, learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn inspiration from the resolution in respect of the meeting held on 1th July,

2000. Relevant portion ofthe resolution is as follows:- "Another case of M/s Lucky Commission Agents was brought to the notice which was report to be pending in appeal. The relevant original file was stated to be submitted by the APMC, Azadpur to the Board which was ultimately submitted to the then Chairman, Sh. Nihal Singh which has not been received back yet and hence no decision taken PageS of[7] thereon, therefore, one more shop drawn from the category of farmers may be kept in reserve to be considered for allotment after decision of the appeal in the case of M/s Lucky Commission Agents and the enquiry by APMC, Azadpur in the case of M/s Sant Raj Ran Singh. It was also decided that one shop of general category shall be subject to the decision of the court in the case ofMohd. Ibrahim Vs. DAMB (pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dt. 14.2.2000."