C.W.P. No.9384 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9384 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.01.2010 M/s Singla Fruit Company through its proprietor ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Principal Secretary and others ....Respondents 2. C.W.P. No.9385 of 2009 M/s Navrattan Fruit Company through its proprietor ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Principal Secretary and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ` -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner, who is a licensee under Category-II specified under Punjab Agricultural Marketing Produce Act, 1961, challenges the rejection of a claim for allotment for a plot at a reserve price in the new Sabzi Mandi at Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, Haryana. A preferential right to allotment at a C.W.P. No.9384 of 2009 -2- reserve price is contemplated under the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000. The relevant Rule 3 details the procedure for conducting auction and for allotment of plots in the new market. The petitioner claims status as a displaced licensee and claimed a right of participation in the auction that was originally held on 25.07.2007. Rule 3(1)(iv) further stipulates a condition that such a licensee must have paid market fee at least Rs.5000/- annually for the last two years, provided that in the case of such category, who had been allotted shop in the old market, if he himself had not paid market fee, his annual turnover during the last two years should be at least Rs.2,50,000/-. The contention of the petitioner is that he has been a licensee since 28.06.2005 and on the date of the auction on 25.07.2007, he had been a licensee for two yeas and more but although the market fee that he had paid was less than Rs.5,000/- annually for the relevant period of two years, he should still merit consideration on the basis that his annual turn over during the last two years was more than Rs.2,50,000/-. 2. Rule (1) (iv) reads thus: "(iv) such licensee must have paid market fee of at last Rs.5,000/- annually for the last two years: Provided that in the case of such category (ii) licensee who does not pay market fee himself, his annual turnover during the last two years should be at least Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand." C.W.P. No.9384 of 2009 -3- The interpretation given to Rule 3(1)(iv) under the relevant Rules is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent by pointing out that the proviso would apply only in cases where a licensee does not pay the market fee himself. The licensee, who pays market fee of less than Rs.5,000/- is not entitled for consideration. The class of person that did not pay the market fee himself could be a situation when a licensee in a grain market does not pay the market fee himself but only the buyer of the grains pays the market fee. According to learned counsel appearing for the respondent, it was not the petitioner's contention that he did not pay the market fee himself as a Commission Agent in the vegetable market. He was bound to pay the market fee himself and the market fee that he had paid was less than Rs.5,000/-. Such a person is not entitled to rely on his turn over as a relevant criterion of allotment at a reserve price. 3. In my view the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent merits acceptance and the proviso must be read only as referring to a situation when there was no obligation to pay the market fee personally and when only a purchaser could have paid the fee. The person who was liable to pay the market fee directly but whose aggregate payment did not exceed Rs.5,000/- in the last two years could not rely on the turover as a relevant consideration. The rejection of the demand for participation and an offer at the reserve prive at the first auction held on 25.07.2007 was under the circumstances justified. C.W.P. No.9384 of 2009 -4- 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out to an amendment in a notification dated 01.09.2008 when the time of payment of market fee had been raised from two years to four years. It will have no bearing to this case, for if in the first auction on 25.07.2007, the petitioner was not qualified for a reserve price, he cannot demand that at the auction, the property sould be offered to him at a reserve price. The petitioner cannot have a remedy before this Court in the manner sought for by him. C.W.P. No.9384 of 2009 fails and deserves to be dismissed. 5. The facts in C.W.P. No.9395 of 2009 are similar to the one concerning in C.W.P. No.9384 of 2009, except for the fact that the petitioner had not completed two years period on the date of the first auction. The disqualification results from a fundamental fact of ineligibility of belonging to a class of persons, who had held a licence for a period not less than two years and who was required to pay the market fee himself. Such person shall not be entitled to make any payment for a reserve price. The petitioner in C.W.P. No.9385 of 2009 is also not entitled to any relief. 6. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 13, 2010 Pankaj*