Mohd. Yunus Pravez v. Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee & Anr

(21) W.P.(C)2010/2017&CM APPL.8922/2017 MOHD.SAHID Petitioner Through: Mr.Anil Panwar & Mr.Tanishq versus AGRICULTUREPRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE& ANR (22) W.P.(C)2099/2017&CM APPL.9175/2017 MOHD.SAHID Petitioner versus AGRICULTUREPRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE&ANR (23) W.P.(C)2100/2017&CM APPL.9181/2017 MOHD.YASHIN Petitioner versus AGRICULTUREPRODUCEMARKETING COMMITTEE& ANR (26) W.P.(C)2757/2017&CM APPL.12013/2017 2019:DHC:7929

VERSUS

AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING; COMMITTEE SHAHDARA & ANR •r'.•• Respondents CORAM: \ HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA - ORDER % 05.09.2019

1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the Impugned Communications dated 16.02.2017 and 01.02.2017 by which the petitioners have been informed thattheir case for renewal oflicense for the year 2016-17 was placed before the Marketing Committee and the Marketing Committee vide its Resolution No.59/2016 did not approve the renewal oflicense ofthe firm,stating thatthe case may be forwarded to the DAMB.The communications further stated that an investigation is going on against 37 Licensees and as and when the process is completed, the Marketing Committee willtake further action.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my reference to the order dated 22.01.2002 passed in Civil Writ Petition no. 7627/2000 by which this Court has held that the petitioners would be eligible for consideration for the allotment ofthe premises on license basis on the usual terms and conditions ofthe respondents subject to availability ofthe space and paymentofarrears by the petitioners.

3. The petitioners duly paid the arrears, however, were not granted allotment ofthe spaces.The petitioners thereafter,filed the second round of litigationinform ofW.P.(C)No.3265/2005 and other petitions.These were

4. The respondent no. 1, however, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 17.03.2007 to the petitioners calling upon them to^show cause as to why ^ their applications for grant of license be not rehised. Finally, by the communication dated 30.03.2007, the respondent no. 1 refused to grant license to the petitioners.

5. This forced the petitioners to initiate the third round of litigation in form of inter alia W.P.(C)No.3349/2007. The said petition was disposed of by the order dated 04.08.2009 setting aside the communication dated 30.03.2007 ofthe respondentno. 1 and directing the respondent no. 1 to pass a fresh order on merits.

6. Pursuantto the above order,the respondents issued licenses in favour of the petitioners, however, did not allot the spaces. The licenses were granted in favour ofthe petitioner on a yearly basis and were renewed from year to year.

7. As noted hereinabove, by the Impugned Communications the respondent no. 1 refused renewal ofthe licenses ofthe petitioners for the year 2016-17.

8. In the counter affidavit the only ground taken by the respondents is that some enquiry is pending against the 37 licensees including the petitioners. However,no details thereofhave been disclosed. It is not even disclosed as to what is the nature ofthe allegations against the petitioners; since when have these enquiries been pending; and how much time it will take to complete the enquiry.Infact, even today the learned counsel for the

9. The above sequence ofevents show the complete arbitrary manner in which the respondents have acted againstthe petitioners. The petitioners had to repeatedly file petitions before this Court eventually leading to the grant oflicenses in their favour. However,in spite ofgrant ofthese licenses,the petitioners were not allotted the space. By the Impugned Communications, without giving any opportunity ofhearing to the petitioners, a decision was taken to refuse the renewal ofthe licenses for the year 2016-17. As noted hereinabove, the same is claimed to have been done on the basis of some investigation pending againstthe licensees including the petitioners ofwhich no details are forthcoming.

10. In view of the above, the Impugned Communications dated 16.02.2017 and 01.02.2017 are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the applications ofthe petitioners for renewal oftheir licenses in accordance with law.The respondents shall further consider the applications ofthe petitioners for grant ofspace in the Gazipur Sabzi Mandi.I may only note that in regard to the allotment of the spaces, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Minutes ofMeeting dated 25.08.2014 ofthe ^ Agricultural Marketing Committee wherein, inter alia, it was decided to make temporary arrangements for the petitioners to carry out their business. The said decision shall also be keptin mind by the respondents while taking decision on the applications of the petitioners for the allotment of spaces. Decision on the applications ofthe petitioners shall be taken within a period ofeight weeksfrom the communication ofthis order.

11. The petitions are allowed in the above terms, with no order as to