CWP No.9987 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9987 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.01.2011 **** Durga Fruit Company . . . . Petitioner VS. Joint Secretary, State Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 07.07.2008 & 16.04.2009 (Annexure P4 & P6, respectively) whereby its application dated 04.06.2008 for the grant of license under Section 10 of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board Act (in short, ‘the Act’) has been declined on the ground that no fresh application for the grant of license under Section 10 is being entertained for the fruit and vegetable Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh “due to heavy congestion in the Mandi”. CWP No.9987 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). Somewhat similar stand has been taken by the respondents in their reply/affidavit also. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, points out and rightly so that the petitioner was granted the license under Section 10 of the Act as a fruit and vegetable commission agent in the year 1990 which could not be got renewed in the year 2006 onwards due to some bona fide mistake and that the petitioner is only seeking renewal of its old license and not a fresh license under Section 10 of the Act. (4). Since the very basis for rejection of the petitioner’s application appears to be factually incorrect, the impugned orders dated 07.07.2008 & 16.04.2009 (Annexure P4 & P6, respectively) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the petitioner’s application for renewal of its old license already granted in the year 1990 strictly as per Rules and Policy, if any. (5). The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 13.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge