:l€ #1s + INTIIEHIGHCOIIRToFDELHIATNEwDELHI W.P.(O 62712010 & CM 132212010 (for stav) YAMEEN ..... Petitioner Through: \zlr. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate' VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Simran and Mr. Nitesh Kr. Singh, Advocates for R-2 to 3' #r6 SHAMIM BEGUM ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate' versus ':' GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... RESPONdENTS Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate for R-i' Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Simran and Mr. Nitesh Kr. Singh, Advocates for R-2/APMC' #17 OM PRAKASH AND ANR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate' versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: IWs. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Simran and iW. Nitesh Kr. Singh, Advocates for R-2 to 3 ' #18 BALDEV RAJ LUTHRA W.P.(C) Nos. 627, 100g, t318,2799,2986,3117,3218' 3713 of2010 ..... Petitioner Page I of| w.P.(o 3rrz20r0 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: IW. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate. VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Simran and IW. Nitesh Kr. Singh, Advocates for R-2 to 3' W.P.(C) 3218/2010 & CM 6439/2010 (for stav) BHAGWAN DASS ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate' versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. YAMIN SABIR & CO. Through: None. ..... Respondents ..... Petitioner VETSUS AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE ""' ResPondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with #r?,/ Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with . Ms. Simran and Mr. Nitesh Kr. Singh, Advocates for R-2 to 3' #20 SURENDRA KUMAR ""' Petitioner Through: \zlr. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate' versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: IWs. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Simran and IW. Nitesh Kr. Singh, Advocates for R-2 to 3 ' #2t W.P.(C) Nos. 627, 1009, 1318,2799,2986,3117,3218, 3713 of2010 Page 2 of I o/o Ms. Simran and Mr. Nitesh Kr. Singh, Advocates for R-2 to 3. #24 W.P.(O 279912010 & CM 5598/2010 (for stav) BILAL AHMAD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sugriva Dubey, Advocate. VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Simran and Mr. Nitesh Kr. Singh, Advocates for R-2 to 3. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MI]RALIDHAR ORDER 22.02.20t1 1. These petitions involve common questions and are accordingly disposed of by this common order. 2. The background to the present petitions is that in L997 land was acquired in the area in which the Shahdara Subzi Mandi was functioning for a DMRC project as a result of which the said Mandi had to be shifted. The cut-off date of 25th Febru ary 1999 was fixed for determining those eligible to be granted licences in order to function from the newly constructed notified market area in Gazipur. : W.P.(C) Nos. 627, 1009, I 318, 2799, 2986, 3I 17, 3218, 3713 of 2010 Page 3 of 8 A'K 3. Alleging that licences were granted to a large number of persons who were not functioning in the Shahdara Subzi Mandi as on 25th February Iggg,the Jamunapar Fruit and Vegetable Commission Agents Association filed a W.P.(C) No. 3423 of 2001 in this Court. In their replies to the said petition, the Respondents, Agricultural Produce Market Comrnittee ('APMC') and the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board ('DAMB') acknowledged that serious irregularities had taken place in the issuance of licences which had led to the initiation of criminal proceedings. This Court then directed that rernedial action be taken in accordance with law. It was observed: "this would necessarily extend to consideration of the licences granted between 2l.05Jgg9 and 28.06.2000 (when the APMC issued"an order banning issuance of fresh licences) and also reviewing the corectness and bona fides of allotment of spaces made. Since the beneficiaries i.e. licencees or allottees are not parties to these proceedings, . this Court is not passing any adverse orders. However, respondents, in view of the decision indicated by them, should take speedy steps to ensure that those who were granted licenses or space illegally or irregularly are put to notice, and after complying with fair procedure necessary action either by cancellation or recall of the orders, taken as early as possible." 4. The consequential directions issued to the APMC were as under: W.P.(C) Nos. 627, 1009, 1318, 2799, 2986, 3117, 3218, 3713 of 2010 Page 4.of I "to examine each license issued and each allotment made during \ the relevant period and determine which of them can be sustained. The concerned parties shall be granted liberfy of . hearing in accordance with law against any proposed action that may be taken against them. However, the respondents shall follow the procedure as mandated in law. The entire process shall be completed as early as possible; since the market was shifted almost a decade ago, the process shall be completed preferably within a period of six months from today.,, 5. A few days later, this Court disposed of other similar petitions viz'' w.p.(c) 683 of 2010 (Darshan Lsl v. GNCTD) etc. The operative directions were as under: ,,The petitioners have produced several documents; the respondents have denied them. The court in Jamunapar Fruit and Veg.CommissionAgentsv.Govt.ofNCTofDelhiandors.was informed about irregularity in the issuance of license when the market was shifted to Gazipur. It is a matter of record that criminal proceedings were initiated against the then Secretary of APMC;gvenchargesheetwasdirectedtobefiled.Thestatus repoft fi|ed before this Court had also disclosed that several irregularites in the issuance of license had taken place' In these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that while carrying out verification process is directed in W.P. 342312001., the respondentsshouldalsoconsiderandverifftheclaimsofall otherapplicantsinaccordancewithlawandinaccordancewith their prescribed norms." W.P.(C) Nos. 627, 100g, 1318,27gg,2986' 3117' 3218' 3713 of2010 Page 5 of I 6. The present Petitioners also claim to have been carrying on trade in Shahdara Subzi Mandi. The prayer is that they should each be allotted a shed/shop in Gazipur Subzi Mandi in lieu of the place from which they were trading'in the Shahdara Subzi Mandi' 7 .Inmost of these cases, the documentation produced by the Petitioners is highly inadequate. s. tn w. P. (c) 627 of 2010 (Yameen v. GNCTD), certain slips showing payment of licence fee have been produced. But in the counter affidavit it is pointed out by the Respondents that the Petitioner's application for a category .(B".licence was rejected in lggg itself. He had filed an application which did not bear his signature. The photographs affixed on the affidavit filed along with the application was of some other person' The petitioner thereafter did not follow up the matter. The Petitioner's rejoinder does not improve the situation. There is no denial that his application stood rejected in 1999 itself. g.InW.P.(C)1009of2010(ShamimBegumv.GNCTD),itispointed out that the allotment of shops in Gazipur Mandi was.completed in 2001 itself. On 16th May 2001 the APMC approved the allotment of shops at W.P.(C) Nos. 627, 100g, 1318,2799,2986,3117,3218' 3713 of2010 Poge 6 of 8 Gazipur to persons who were in possession of licences allotted before the cut off date and were carrying on business from Shahdara Subzi Mandi' As far as the petitioner Shamim Begum is concerned, the Respondents pointed - .i. out that she was never granted any licence to carry out business from Shahdara Subzi Mandi. Her application for a category "B" licence had been rejected in 1999 itself and she had taken no steps to follow up the mattel thereafter 10. In W. P. (C)2g86of 2010 (om Prakash & Anr. v. GNCTD), again the Respondents point out that the Petitioners were not granted any "8" category licence. The documentation produced by the Petitioners is wholly inadequate and does in any manner demonstrate that they were functioning as commission agents. Although the Petitioners are om Prakash and Ramesh Kumar, both sons of Desh Raj, the documents annexed to the petition pertain to different persons' 11. In W. P. (c) 3117 of 2010 (Battlev Rai Luthra v. GNCTD)' the'same set of documents annexed with W. P. (C) 2986 of 2010 have been enclosed' In the counter affidavit, the Respondents pointed out that at no point in time was the Petitioner granted any licence to carry ou! QnY.trade in the Shahdara Subzi Mandi. ly.P.(C) Nos. 627, 1009, 1318, 2799,2986,3117,3218' 3713 of2010 Page 7 of I t> 12. The position as regards the other Petitioners, Bhagwan Dass [w'P'(c) 3218 of 20101, surender Kumar tw. P. (c) 3713 of 20101, Bilal Ahmad tw.p.(c) 27gg of 20101 andYamin Sabir & co. [w.P.(c) 1318 of 2010]' is no different. 13. This Court finds that in all the above matters, apart from the fact that the petitions are hopelessly barred by laches, no reliable documentation has been placed on record to substantiate any of the claims of the Petitioners' 14. This Court does not find it possible to grant any of the reliefs prayed for in these petitions. They are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. All the pending applications also stand dismissed' v.u s. MilLTDHAR, r FEBRUARY 22,2OTI akg W.P.(C) Nos. 627, 1009, 1318, 27gg' 2986' 3117' 3218' 3713 of2010 Page I of I