S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4382/1998. M/s Mohan Lal Umraomal Vs. Agriculture Produce Market Society & Anr. Date of Order :: 2nd March 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. A.K. Acharya, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. … BY THE COURT: The petitioner, said to be a proprietorship firm dealing in agriculture produces, was issued a license by the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bilara ('the Samiti') to carry on its business in its mandi area on 14.09.1995 (Annex.1); and was allotted shop No. C-4 in the mandi yard. The petitioner was, however, served with a notice dated 22.06.1998 (Annex.8) stating that under the orders of the Director, Agricultural Marketing Directorate dated 23.04.1998, allotment of the shops in relation to such traders who had not carried out any business for last two years ought to be cancelled; and it was pointed out that the petitioner had in its letter dated 14.01.1998 informed the Samiti about itself having not transacted any business in the years 1995-96 to 1997-98. Hence, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the allotment of the shop in question be not cancelled. The petitioner having not submitted any reply, yet another 1 notice to the same effect was issued to the petitioner on 04.07.1998 (Annex.9). The proprietor of the petitioner firm allegedly submitted a reply to the said notice on 21.07.1998 (Annex.10) to the effect that he had been making deposit of the rent in relation to the shop in question but could not commence business for family and financial circumstances that would now be commenced very soon. The respondent Samiti proceeded to pass the impugned order on 12.11.1998 (Annex.11) and while reiterating the facts aforesaid, pointed out that the petitioner answered to the description of an inactive firm and called upon the petitioner to deposit the due rent of Rs.4,410/- for the months of April 1998 to October 1998 with late fees until delivery of possession. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 09.12.1998 and the same was entertained by this Court on 15.03.1999 while issuing the notices to the respondents; and in the meantime, execution and implementation of the impugned order dated 12.11.1998 was ordered to remain stayed. This writ petition was admitted for consideration on 27.07.2001 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the interim order as passed on 15.03.1999 was confirmed with liberty to the respondents to file reply and pray for vacation. 2 The respondent Samiti moved an application (IA No. 4015/2008) on 02.04.2008 with the submissions that the pleadings in the case were complete and that about Rs. 63,000/- were due against the petitioner against the rent of the shop in question and continuing of the interim order was causing financial loss to the Samiti. The said application was considered by this Court on 22.05.2008 and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,000/- within one month failing which, the interim order was to stand vacated. This Court observed and ordered thus: “Heard on I.A. No. 4015/2008. The said application has been filed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bilara for vacation of stay order. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 63,000/- are due from the petitioner, who is enjoying the possession of the shop in question allotted by the respondent – Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bilara without payment of aforesaid due. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner would deposit 50% of the said arrears i.e. Rs.32,000/- within a period of one month from today with the respondents, failing which the interim order granted by this Court on 15.3.1999 confirmed by this Court on 27th July, 2001 shall stand vacated. Put up for orders on 15th July, 2008 as prayed.” Thereafter, the matter was considered on 15.07.2008 3 and learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that an amount of Rs. 68,670/- had been deposited by the petitioner and such assertion was not disputed on behalf of the respondent Samiti and rather it was pointed out that the matter of regularisation was pending consideration with the Director concerned. In the circumstances, the application (IA No. 4015/2008) was treated as redundant, however, this writ petition was ordered to be listed for hearing with the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that after the order was passed on22.05.2008, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 68,670/- on 05.06.2008 with the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bilara. Mr. Ravi Bhansali learned counsel appearing for the said respondent does not dispute this position and further submits that the matter of the petitioner relating to regularisation is under consideration with the Director, Agricultural Marketing and prays for some time. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, no further orders are required on the application (IA No. 4015/2008) that stands disposed of and this writ petition may be listed for hearing as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties on 10.09.2008.” During the course of hearing, it was given out that the matter forwarded by the respondent Samiti still remains pending with the Director concerned. Be that as it may, in view of the events that have taken place during the pendency 4 of this writ petition particularly the order as passed by this Court on 22.05.2008 and thereafter deposit of the amount of Rs. 68,670/- by the petitioner thereby substantially clearing off the arrears; and for all these years the petitioner having continued in possession of the shop in question, this Court is of opinion that the impugned order dated 12.11.1998 has already lost its efficacy and interest of justice would meet if the said order is set aside while otherwise keeping it open for the parties to take resort to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in case of any dispute remaining regarding the allotment or terms thereof or compliance of the terms of allotment or of the like nature. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned order dated 12.11.1998 (Annex.11) stands quashed. It shall be open for the respondents to take up the proceedings against the petitioner afresh, if so required; but strictly in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order only after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If, upon passing of any order in cancellation of the allotment or even varying the terms of the allotment order or of the like nature, the petitioner would feel aggrieved against, it would equally be open for the petitioner to take resort to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. 5 In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. //Mohan// 6