$-* trN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #8+ W.P.(C) 8521 of 2009 }IAzuSH GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohsin Israily, Advocate. . VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Through: Mr. ..... Respondents Ajuy Bhatnagar, Advocate. #9 + W.P.(C) 8522 of 2009 CHANDER KANT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohsin Israily, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Bhatnagar, Advocate. #10 + AND W.P.(O 8539 of 2009 RAM NARAIN versus ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohsin Israily, Advocate. W.P. (Civil) Nos. 8527,8522 & 8539/2009 Page 7 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ) oh GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mt. Aj uy Bhatnagar, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 23.02.2011 1. These three petitions involve colnmon questions and are accordingly being disposed of by a common order. 2. The Petitioners claim to have been holding licences for carrying on business of selling vegetables at Shakarpur Pushta, Delhi- 110092. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8521 of 2009, the Petitioner Harish Gupta claims to have submitted an application on 2"d June 2000 for grant of category 'A' licence. In the reply filed by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee ('APMC') and the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board ('DAMB'), while it is not denied that the Petitioner Harish Gupta applied for a fresh licence on 2nd June 2000, it is stated that his case could not be considered since a decision was taken to relocate the Shakarpur Pushta Sabzi Mandi to the Gazipur Sabzi Mandi in January 2000 and a resolution was W.P. (Civit) Nos. 8527, 8522 & 8539/2009 Poge 2 of 4 ? passed on 24thMay 2000to ban the issuance of fresh licences with effect from that date. The decision in this regard was communicated to the Petitioner by an order dated 22"d February 2001. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present petition oq 4th March 2009. 'fhere is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. The Petitioner claims to have been rnaking representations. What is, however, placed on the record are legal notices dated 3'd January 2005,8th August 2008 and 5th January 2009 sent bv the Petitioner. 4. In the considered view of this Court, no fault can be found with the policy decision taken by the APMC on 24th May 2000 not to issue fresh licences in view of the impending shifting of the Shakarpur Pushta Sabzi Mandi to the Gazipur Sabzi Mandi. Consequently, the rejection of the APMC to entertain the application made on 2nd June 2000 by the Petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary. Moreover, there is absolutely no valid explanation as to why the Petitioner chose to wait for more than eight years thereafter to file the present writ petition. W.P. (Civil) Nos. 8527, 8522 & 8539/2009 Page 3 of 4 \o 5. The facts in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8522 of 2009 by Chander Kant are more or less similar. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent, it has been pointed out that in view of the ban on issuance of fresh licences with effect from 24't'May 2000, an order was issued on 22"d February 200I informing the Petitioner of the said decision. Here again, no valid reason is coming forth from the Petitioner for the delay in approaching this Court for relief. . The position in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8539 of 2009, is no different. 6. In each of these three cases, therefore, this Court finds that the Petitioners have not approached this Court in good time and moreover there is nothing arbitrary in the impugned decisions of the Respondents in refusing to grant licences to the Petitioners. 7. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. HAR, J FEBRUARY 23, 2OII ha vL? S. MURALID w.P. (civil) Nos. 8527,8s22 & 8539/2009 Page 4 of 4