IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.205 of 2006 Ashok Kumar , son of Shree Ram Das Sahu, Resident of Kisan College Road, Sohsarai, P.S. Sohsarai, District Nalanda……………………………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Patna Bhawan, Beli Road, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Nalanda. 5. Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 6. M/s Jai Mata Di Traders, Shop No.24/26 , APML Biharsharif Campus, Gallu Mandi, Nalanda, Biharsharif through its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Sinha. 7. Manoj Kumar Sinha s/o Sri Brahamdeo Pd., R/o village and P.O. Deep Nagar, P.S. Deep Nagar, Distt. Nalanda. ..................Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate with M/s Sudhir Singh and Raghwanand, Advocates. For the State : Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, AAG -13 For the private respondents : Mr. Ajay, Advocate. ----------- P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN O R D E R 14/ 25.07.2011 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents authorities to restore peaceful possession of shop no.24/26 in the premises of Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, Bihar Sharif (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’ for the sake of brevity) which was allotted to the petitioner vide letter no.206 dated 03.04.2003 and to return back the articles and money which were taken away by the respondents authorities by breaking the lock of the shop in question on 17.12.2005 and for restraining them from creating any hindrance in running of business - 2 - of the petitioner after delivery of peaceful possession of the shop in question. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that he started his wholesale business of food grains, edible oil, vegetable oil, sugar, etc. under the name and style of ‘Rishi Trading Company’ at Biharsharif. It is also stated that on 23.08.1992 he applied for license for the said trade and for a shop in the premises of the Committee and after six years license for carrying on trade was granted to him by the respondents authorities on 06.02.1998 and five years thereafter shop no.24/26 was allotted to him by the respondents authorities in the premises of the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee on 03.04.2003 and agreement was prepared between the parties on 06.04.2003, whereafter possession of the shop was handed over to the petitioner on 12.04.2003. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on 17.12.2005 the respondents authorities broke the lock of the petitioner’s shop without giving any information or notice to him and without assigning any reason seized the articles of the petitioner kept therein. In the said circumstances, the petitioner informed the police about the said occurrence and also filed the instant writ petition on 06.01.2006. 4. The writ petition was heard on 20.02.2006 and an interim relief was granted by a Bench of this court directing the authorities of the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Patna and the authorities of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee Nalanda to keep the shop in question in their own possession and - 3 - not to allot it to anybody else until further orders of this court. 5. I.A. No.1866 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner on 22.03.2007 stating that much after filing of the writ petition he learnt that letters dated 04.03.2005, 12.07.2005 and 15.09.2005 were issued as claimed by the respondents, which were never served upon the petitioner and hence he had no knowledge of the said letters sent by the authorities due to which they were not annexed to the writ petition. Hence a further relief was sought to be added for quashing letter dated 15.09.2005 passed by the Market Secretary, Agriculture Production Committee, Nalanda by which allotment of shop to the writ petitioner was cancelled and shop was allotted to one Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Proprietor, M/s Jai Mata Di Traders. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the cancellation of petitioner’s allotment was absolutely illegal and perverse as the petitioner could not run his shop earlier till December, 2004 as it was in possession of the respondents for repairs and immediately after shop was handed over to him in January, 2005 there were huge transaction in the shop from January till November, 2005 which is apparent from the receipts (Annexure- 22 series). He further stated that non-renewal of agreement cannot be a ground for such cancellation. He also argued that malice was clear from the facts of the case which showed total disregard of petitioner’s right. In this connection he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court as well as a decision of this court in case of State of A.P. and Others vs. Goverdhanlal Pitti, reported in (2003) 4 - 4 - Supreme Court Cases 739 and in case of The Gait Public Library and Institute, Gardanibagh, Patna through its President vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1995 (1) PLJR 585. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents authorities opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had admitted that the shop was handed over to him on 12.04.2003, whereafter the petitioner never handed over possession of the shop to the respondents authorities, as only some repair was required which was done by the authorities concerned, while petitioner was in possession of the shop. Hence he claimed that it was the duty of the petitioner to pay the rent but he failed to pay any rent for several years when he remained in possession of the shop, nor he paid the security deposit as required. 8. Leaned counsel for the respondents authorities further argued that the agreement dated 03.04.2003 was only for one year and the license was renewable yearly on fresh terms and conditions in consultation with the Board, thus due to non-renewal the license had expired much earlier and thus the petitioner was not entitled for retaining the shop in question. It was claimed by learned counsel for the respondents authorities that reminders dated 04.03.2005, 12.07.2005 and letter dated 15.09.2005 were sent to the petitioner but the petitioner refused to receive the same as is apparent from letter dated 15.09.2005 itself. Hence, he submitted that the claim of the petitioner was absolutely frivolous and misconceived. - 5 - 9. I.A. No.1685 of 2006 was filed by M/s Jai Mata Di Traders and its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Sinha for being impleaded as party respondents to the case and vide order dated 29.03.2007 the said interlocutory application was allowed and they were added as respondent nos.6 and 7 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7 submitted that receipt dated 30.09.2003 (Annexure-20) relied upon by the petitioner as security deposit was absolutely wrong as it was clear from its entries that it was only for market fees and not for security deposit, hence no security money was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner had also admitted that he had not paid rent for the shop since 2003 although possession was given to him on 12.04.2003. He further averred that notices were repeatedly sent to the petitioner by the respondents authorities on 04.03.2005 and 12.07.2005 but when no heed was paid by the petitioner to the said notices nor any rent was paid by the petitioner, the allotment of shop was cancelled by the authorities concerned vide order dated 15.09.2005. 10. Learned counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7 further stated that thereafter on 25.11.2005 notice was published on the notice board with respect to the shop in question and respondent nos.6 and 7 applied on 29.11.2005 and allotment was made in their favour by the respondents authorities on 30.11.2005 and possession of the shop was given to them in December, 2005 whereafter security money was deposited by respondent nos.6 and 7 and they are regularly paying the rent to the respondents authorities and they are using the shop for their business concerned on renewals. - 6 - 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it appears to be an admitted fact that the shop in question was allotted to the petitioner on 03.04.2003 when possession of the said shop was handed over to him. However, there is no material at all to show that the petitioner ever returned the shop to the respondents authorities for repairs, hence it transpires that repair, if any, was made by the authorities concerned in the shop in question while the petitioner was in possession of the shop. Thus the petitioner had remained in possession of the shop in question from April, 2003 till September, 2005 but admittedly no rent was paid by the petitioner for the same. 12. Furthermore, from the admitted agreement between the parties it is quite apparent that it was only for one year and thereafter it was renewable at the instance of the petitioner but he did not take any step in that regard nor he produced any application before the authorities for renewal of the said agreement nor the petitioner ever claimed in the writ petition that he had applied for renewal. In the said circumstances, the agreement between the parties automatically terminated after completion of one year from the date of agreement and the petitioner had no right left to remain in possession or to take benefit of the agreement which stood concluded due to completion of its term. 13. So far the question of payment of security money is concerned, the only document on which the petitioner is relying is a receipt dated 30.09.2003 (Annexure-20) but a bare perusal of the said receipt shows that the said receipt was not issued for security - 7 - money (Pratibhuti Dhan) rather it was with respect to the market fees (Bazar Shulk). In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the petitioner did not even deposit the security money which was necessary for the allotment of shop. Hence, there was no occasion for the agreement to continue. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts the authorities were justified in issuing letter and reminder dated 04.03.2005 and 12.07.2005 (Annexure-A series) to the petitioner for depositing the amount due and to state why the allotment of shop in his favour should not be cancelled. It is quite apparent from letter dated 15.09.2005 (Annexure-19) that the petitioner refused to receive the earlier letter/reminder and he did not even deposit his market rent and security money. Hence, the respondents authorities were justified in cancelling the allotment of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 15.09.2005 (Annexure-19). 15. So far the question of malice raised by the petitioner is concerned, it is apparent from the aforesaid facts that there was no malice in any act of the respondents authorities nor they have disregarded the right of the petitioner rather the petitioner himself due to his own act lost his right to continue with the shop or with the agreement, whereas the respondents authorities had throughout taken appropriate steps and had proceeded in accordance with the principles of law. Hence, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of State of A.P. and Others (Supra) and in case of The Gait Public Library and Institute, Gardanibagh, Patna through its President (Supra) are - 8 - not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. It further transpires that after cancellation of the said allotment, possession was taken by the respondents authorities and notice was published on 25.11.2005 inviting applications for allotment of the said shop, in response to which respondent nos.6 and 7 applied on 29.11.2005 and the same was allotted to them on 30.11.2005. In the said circumstances, due procedure of law was followed by the authorities concerned and no one except the petitioner objected to the said allotment. The objection of the petitioner with respect to the said procedure is thus absolutely frivolous and misconceived as the allotment was cancelled legally due to the fault of the petitioner himself. 17. Furthermore the authorities concerned are quite justified in directing recovery of money from the petitioner, as he had remained in possession of the shop in question for several years transacting his business and earning, as per his own claim, without payment of market fees and security money. 18. This court does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)