CWP No.5750 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.5750 OF 2008 Date of Decision: 7.4.2008. M/s Mahender Singh Kanhaya Lal and others ............. Petitioners through Mr. Amit Jain,Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and others. ..............Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? . ***** Vijender Jain,Chief Justice Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing the order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (for short HSAMB)- respondent no.2, vide which the representation filed by the petitioners, being old licencees of Market Committee, Faridabad for re-fixation of reserve price in respect of allotment of plots situated in New Vegetable Market, Faridabad in the draw of lots held on 28.2.2006, has been rejected. Petitioners have further prayed for directing the respondents to fix the reserve price of the plots/shops in the said Mandi at par with the 1999 rates at which similar sized plots have already been allotted in the CWP No.5750 OF 2008 2 same Market, out of which the present remaining plots are now being sold. Facts as borne out from the writ petition are that the petitioners are old licencees of Category II i.e. Kacha Arhatiyas as defined under Rule 9 of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules,1962 and have been working as such for nearly last two decades in their respective shops in the markets under respondent-HSAMB and as such were regularly paying assessed market fee. In the year 1998-99 respondents developed about 53 plots at the new Vegetable Market, Sector 16, Faridabad for allotment by auction to the persons like the petitioners and the minimum reserve price fixed was Rs.15 lacs. During the auction held in the year 1999 for these plots the average price of the normal size plots came to be Rs.15.76 lacs. Only 20 plots could be auctioned. It is further stated that the remaining plots were put for allotment by draw of lots held in February 2006 from amongst the old licencees at reserve price and all the petitioners participated in the same. It is grievance of the petitioners that at the time of draw of lots they were not conveyed the reserve price of the plots, i.e. Rs. 55,58,930/-, which at the face of it is highly excessive and exhorbitant. The petitioners made a representation dated 20.3.2006 (Annexure P-3) in this regard and having heard nothing in the matter, were constrained to file CWP No. 8466 of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.5.2006 with a direction to respondents to take a final decision on the said representation dated 20.3.3006 as expeditiously as possible. In pursuance of the said direction order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P-4), impugned in the instant writ petition, has been passed by the Chief Administrator, HSAMB,Panchkula. CWP No.5750 OF 2008 3 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. We find that the impugned order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P-4) does not suffer from any illegality. It is a detailed well reasoned order. It has been held that the reserve price of the plots allotted in the draw of lots held on 28.2.2006 was worked out strictly as per provision of rule 3 of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000, which have been framed by the State Government for sale and transfer of immovable properties of HSAMB and the marketing committees. It is further evident from record that this reserve price was approved by the competent authority on 27.2.2006 and the same was duly intimated on the same day to respondent no.3- Marketing Committee, Faridabad and there was no reason/occasion for the said market committee not to disclose the said reserve price to the applicants. It has also been concluded that the averments made in the representation dated 20.3.2006 regarding concealment of reserve price before draw of lots are factually incorrect. Further, the concluding para of the impugned order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P-4) reads as under:- “Otherwise also it is an admitted fact that the reserve price has been worked out strictly as per provisions of Rules 2000. For the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that the said reserve price was not disclosed to the applicants then it does not make any difference because in such a situation, the applicants could have withdrawn their names from the draw of lot. Same is the situation at this stage also. The allotment of plots is not binding upon the CWP No.5750 OF 2008 4 applicants and if any of the applicants does not want allotment on the said reserve price, he may apply to the Committee for cancellation of the draw of lot in his favour. Thus, in both the situation whether the reserve price was disclosed to the applicants or not, no prejudice has been caused to the applicants and the applicants are still at liberty to get the plots on the reserve price worked out as per the provisions of Rules,2000 or to withdraw from the draw of lot. However, it also remains a fact that under the provisions of the Rules, 2000, no discretion has been conferred upon the appellate authority to re-fix/ decrease the reserve price so fixed as per provisions of Rules,2000.” In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE 7.4.2008 (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE