CWP No. 5045 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5045 of 2011 Date of decision October 12, 2011 M/s Prem Singh Chankrola and another ....... Petitioners Versus State Agricultural Marketing Board and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. R. Sayal, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of refusal of license to an existing trader who did not previously require license till when his turn over was less than `3 lacs per annum and as such he was an exempted trader. The fresh application made after the increase in turn over came to be rejected on the ground that there was already congestion in the market and the fresh license shall not be possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites to me Section 6 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 which sets out the declaration to a notified market area and Section 10 which deals with provisions for application for license, cancellation or suspension. Section 10(3) provides for three contingencies for refusing to issue the license. The same is CWP No. 5045 of 2011 2 reproduced hereunder:- The Secretary of the board after such enquiry as he may consider necessary, refuse a licence to a person who in his option :- (a) is a benamidar for or a partner with any person to whom a licence has been refused or whose licence is cancelled or suspended under sub-section (2) for the period of such cancellation or suspension ; or (b) is convicted of an offence affecting that said person’s integrity as a man of business within two years of such conviction ; or (c) is undischarged insolvent : Provided that no such order shall be made without giving such person an opportunity to show cause why such an order should not be made. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the rejection of license has been made on a ground which is not stipulated under the rules. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the writ petition itself is not maintainable since there is remedy by means of appeal to the State Government under Section 10(4). It has to be noticed that the petitioners plead that the refusal of license on a ground other than what is mentioned in the relevant provisions is against the provisions of law. I would not fetter the jurisdiction of this Court to consider whether such a rejection was tenable in law or not. Congestion is not a ground for rejection especially when the petitioners state that they will be prepared to give an undertaking that they need not be allotted any specific area within the auction platform while being issued with the license. I would, under the circumstances hold that respondents are at liberty to secure such an undertaking and mandate the respondents to issue a license on securing CWP No. 5045 of 2011 3 such an undertaking. The impugned order of rejection of claim for license is quashed and the writ petition is allowed subject to the directions as aforesaid. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 12, 2011 archana