* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI + LPA No. 331 of 2010 Judgment reserved on: May 10, 2010 % Judgment delivered on: June 3, 2010 M/s Samrat Onion Company Through its Sole Proprietor Shri Sunil Kumar C/o Shri Sanjay Sharma At 1/3016, Gali No. 16 Ram Nagar, Loni Road Shahdara,Delhi-110032. .. .Appellant Through Mr.Sugriva Dubey, Adv. Versus 1. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Shahdara Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through its Secretary Fruit & Vegetahie Market Ghazipur, Delhi-110096. 2. The Agricultural Produce Market Board Through its Vice-Chairman At 9, Institutional Area Pankha Road, Janak Puri Delhi. 3. The Directorate of Agricultural Marketing Govt. of NCT of Delhi 49, Shamnath Marg Delhi. ...Respondents LPA No.331/2010 Page 1 of 7 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 Through Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Adv. for Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. R-1 Mr.Y.D. Nagar, Adv. for Mr.Rattan Lai, Adv. for R-2 and 3 Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAD AN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? MADAN B. LOKUR, J Yes Not necessary Not necessary The Appellantisaggrievedby an orderdated4^^' March,2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 11431/2006. 2. The main grievance of the Appellant is that the Respondents declined to issue a Category 'B' licence and allot an alternate place of businessin GhazipurSabzi Mandi pursuantto an applicationdated 1'^' March, 1999. 3. Earlier, on 15"^ March, 2001 the Appellant's application LPA No.331/2010 Page 2 of 7 dated 1®' March, 1999 was rejected.The rejectionwas challengedby the Appellant by filing a writ petition being WP (C) No. 2373/2002. By an order dated 29* September,2004 a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition since no reasons were recorded for rejecting the representationdated 1®' March, 1999 and also because no notice had been issued to the Appellant regarding the rejection of the representation. It was accordingly directed that the representation be considered afresh on merits. 4. Thereafter, the Respondents required the Appellant to produce certain documents to show that it was carrying on business at its stated premises either in its capacity as the owner of the premises or as an attorney of the owner. This was necessary to enable the Respondents to decide on the allotment of an alternate site. 5. Among the documents required to be produced by the Appellant, were the following: - 1. Original letter of allotment of Shop of Sh. Uttam Chand or Registry of the said shop. 2. Proof of possession of shop like Electricity bill or M.T.N.L. telephone bill in the name of your firm. LPA No.331/2010 Page 3 of 7 3. ' Partnership Deed. 4. Registration of the firm under Delhi Shop & Establishment Act/Rules and renewal thereof 5. Rent Receipt original copy from 3.11.1998 upto date. 6. Attested photos of partners. 7. Proof of partnership firm, like Bank Account, Proof of Income Tax Return. 8. Proof of residence siich as Ration Card or Voter Identity Card or Driving Licence or Passport of L.I.C. policy etc. of both the partners. 9. Copy of new ration card. 10. One attested photograph of the proprietor, Sunil Kumar. 11. Photocopy of acknowledgement of application for issue of PAN Card. 12. Photocopy of rent receipts of different months and years. 13. Statement of bank account of proprietor firm. 6. The Appellant was also requested by a communication dated 8^*^ December,2004to clarifywhetherit was in fact a partnershipfirm or a sole proprietorship concern. The reason for seeking this clarification was that in WP (C) No. 2373/2002 the Appellant was shown as a partnership firm with Sunil Kumar and Dharmender Kumar Sharma being the partners but the case subsequently made out was that the LPA No. 331/2010 Page 4 of 7 Appellant was a sole proprietorship concern of Sunil Kumar. 7. For a proper and effective consideration of its case, the Appellant was invited to appear for a personal hearing but despite notices sent in this regard, the Appellant does not appear to have availed of this opportunity. 8. Feeling aggrieved that no positive decision was taken in its favour, the Appellant filed a writ petition in this court for the allotment of a suitable place of business in Ghazipur Sabzi Mandi. The writ petition was rejected by the impugned order and hence this appeal. 9. The learned Single Judge held, and in our opinion quite rightly, that the Appellant was not able to produce any credible material to show that it was carrying on business to entitle it for the allotment of an alternate site at Ghazipur Sabzi Mandi. In fact, the Appellant was not able to produce any material to show whether it was a partnership firm or a sole proprietorship concern. The Appellant had submitted before the learned Single Judge that its description in the earlier writ petition as being a partnership firm was a typographical error. This was not LPA No.331/2010 Page 5 of 7 believed by the learned Single Judge because at several places in the writ petition it was submitted that the Appellant was a partnership concern. Even the affidavit filed in support of the application submitted to the Respondentson 1^^ March, 1999 indicatedthat the Appellantis a partnership concern. The real status of the Appellant, therefore, remains a complete mystery. 10. Additionally, the Appellant was not able to produce relevant documents to show that it was in lawful possession of business premises to enable the allotment of an alternate site in Ghazipur Sabzi Mandi. In this regard, the Appellant was unable to produce the original power of attorney to suggest the possession of the Appellant; the Appellant was unable to produce any relevant document to show that the electricity connection was in its name; the Appellant was unable to show any rent receipts etc. 11. Since the Appellant could not produce any credible material which could suggest its bona fides with regard to its carrying on business, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the application filed by the Appellant on 1^^ March, 1999 was rightly LPA No.331/2010 Page 6 of 7 rejected. 12. In our opinion, there is no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We are not at all satisfied that an incorrect finding of fact has been arrived at with regard to the case of the Appellant. Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and so the appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUNE 3, 2010 kapil Certified that the corrected copy of the judgment has been transmitted to the main Server. LPA No.331/2010 MAD AN B. LOKUR, J. MUKTA GUPTA, J. -vCeA®""a.j? •- IM* c/1' f- &•!<; Page 7 of,