LPA No.583 of 2011 and connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.583 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.5.2011 M/s Shanti Fruit Company ...Appellant Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others ….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellants in LPA No.583 Of 2011. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Mr. Arvind Rajotia, and Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocates for the appellants in connected cases. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. 1. This order will dispose of 27 appeals being LPA Nos.583, 584, 594, 595, 601, 603, 605, 610 to 616, 626 to 633, 638, 639, 641 to 643, as it is stated that all the appeals involve common question. 2. LPA No.583 of 2011 arises from interim order passed by learned Single Judge directing that plots equal to number of the petitioners be kept reserved and the remaining may be allotted by way of draw of lots. 3. The grievance raised in the writ petition is that while the old market under the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce markets act, 1961 was being notified, old licencees in the said market were not being considered eligible for draw of lots in the new market even though, they were covered by the criteria laid down for allotment in the Haryana 1 LPA No.583 of 2011 and connected cases State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000. Rule 3 deals with allotment of plots to different categories of old licensees. The categories include those having valid licenses for more than two years (now amended to four years) and having paid market fee atleast of Rs.5000/- annually for the last two years or having turnover of atleast Rs.2,50,000/- for those who were not paying market fee themselves apart from other conditions There is also requirement of having independent premises. All the writ petitioners were considered to be ineligible on the ground that they were not having independent premises or they were not paying the requisite market fee or they were not kacha arhtiyas or they were not licensees for more than four years. The writ petitioners challenged their being declared ineligible by pointing out that the factual basis on which they were rendered ineligible was incorrect. When one of the writ petition came up for hearing on 3.8.2010, learned Single Judge passed following order:- “In the meantime, petitioner shall be included in the draw of lots, scheduled to be held on 5.8.2010 or any other date as may be fixed for the purpose. However, in the event, the petitioner is found to be successful, the plot shall not be allotted without orders from this Court.” However, subsequently, on 9.3.2011, different order was passed as follows:- “The respondents shall reserve the plots equal to the number of the petitioners, who are present before the Court as on date. The respondents shall be entitled to hold a draw for the remaining plots.” The Division Bench after hearing learned counsel for the parties in LPA No.733 of 2010, passed following order on 17.3.2011:- 2 LPA No.583 of 2011 and connected cases “Learned counsel for respondents No.11, 12 and 14 has submitted that in the draw of lots that are now proposed to be held, the said respondents are not being permitted to participate on the ground that in the interim order dated 15.7.2010 passed by this Court, it has been recorded that ‘the names of the appellants shall be included in the draw of lots…’ We make it clear that the said interim order should not be construed to be debarring the respondents No.11, 12 and 14 to participate in the draw of lots, if they are otherwise entitled to and eligible.” 4. Following the said order, on 25.3.2011, following order was passed in LPA No.583 of 2011:- “Upon due consideration, we are of the tentative view that the interim order dated 9.3.2011 which has been challenged in the present appeal is contrary to the interim order passed by this Court on 15.7.2010 and 17.3.2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No.733 of 2010. We have also taken into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that if the appellant is excluded from the draw of lots, the appellant will be deprived of an opportunity to have allotment of prime plot(s) in the event its eligibility is to be answered in its favour by the Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct stay of order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9.3.2011 and also direct that in the draw of lots scheduled for 30.3.2011 the appellant shall be allowed to participate.” 5. Today, learned counsel appearing for the Marketing Board states that in the draw of lots, all the appellants will be allowed to participate in terms of order of this Court dated 3.8.2010 but if found to be successful they will not be allotted plots without orders of this Court. 3 LPA No.583 of 2011 and connected cases 6. In view of this statement, no further orders are required in these appeals and the same are disposed of accordingly. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 25, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 4